25 ms·
Prohibition was primarily the work of one pressure group
- brandonmenc 11y ago> The campaign behind Prohibition was hugely successful — and may have inspired the NRA's modern tactics I see the NRA adopting something more akin to pro-choice advocacy - a zero compromise scorched earth policy, where any attempt to discuss banning the most extreme products (late term abortions, unlicensed fully automatic weapons) results in arguing uphill against a slippery slope. (disclaimer: I am an NRA member)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- scrollaway 11y agoDo you think that is a good tactic (both on effectiveness and on a moral level)? If so, why?
- Retric 11y agoThe pro-choice side has let a lot of things slide without notice. Most notably access is the line in the sand not discouraging hoops. That said, the NRA has also let a lot of things slide. There pro armor piercing bullets, but not anti-tank rounds. Even if the lack of anti-military hardware makes the second amendment almost pointless.
- hga 11y ago"There pro armor piercing bullets" Assuming you mean "They're", nope, they signed off on the ban of AP ammo that can be shot from a handgun, which means all AP ammo short of, say, .50 BMG, which I'm pretty sure would pulverize anyone's hand, wrist and arm. As for "the lack of anti-military hardware makes the second amendment almost pointless.", you suffer from a lack of imagination: The small arms we're all allowed to own everywhere but NYC and D.C. are quite sufficient to procure the heavier stuff. Being able to reach out and touch someone from 800 yards and more means something serious. The US has never fought a war without a secure rear area. There are many, many other things small arms make more achievable. Like making it too expensive to do a lot of things en masse; as Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it in The GULAG Archipelago: And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria [Government limo] sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
- Retric 11y agoBy that line of thinking all you need is some sticks not guns to get the ball rolling. Making guns irrelevant if your goal is to protect freedom.
- geoka9 11y agoI'm afraid Solzhenitsyn is a bit naive in thinking that would've caused the oppression to stop. The authorities would have just moved in the troops and introduced military law, shooting people without hesitation. After all that's what they did in Budapest in 1956 and Prague in 1968.
- shaftoe 11y agoI think you miss the point. Of course someone with a stick against the NKVD is at a serious disadvantage. Of course Stalin didn't hesitate to murder millions. The point is the bitter shame at having gone quietly and meekly to the camps. The regret at having not fought to defend oneself. The counter example would be the Warsaw ghetto.
- Zak 11y ago.50 BMG, which I'm pretty sure would pulverize anyone's hand Actually, that's been done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNZgzMtIM7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNZgzMtIM7s
- nsxwolf 11y agoPointless? Every war the US has fought since Vietnam has essentially been a matchup of the full might of the US military against rocks and sticks, and the rocks and sticks always win. Millions of like minded American citizens could certainly make things difficult for the US military in a guerrilla war.
- lispit 11y agoThere's some weird cognitive dissonance going on where many of the people that love to point out that the US military can't possibly succeed against guerrilla combatants in the Middle East are the same people that laugh at "gun nuts" for "thinking their small arms would do anything against the military's tanks, artillery, airstrikes, etc."
- brandonmenc 11y agoThere's also a failure to acknowledge that some of the military would fight with the gun nuts, not against them.
- whatok 11y agoAnd the fact that if the military started slaughtering their own citizens with tanks and bombs, um that kinda might not be seen as too positive to the rest of the world.
- lispit 11y agoThat's another good bit of cognitive dissonance. I'd wager that many of these same people are aware of and support movements like #BlackLivesMatter, that use social media to spread awareness of instances of police brutality to massive audiences. Yet they never stop to consider how effective those same tactics could be in a theoretical armed resistance. Imagine someone recording a group of teenaged American rebels being slaughtered by the military, the media running with it and getting statements from the bereaved families, further polarizing would-be rebels while sparking dissent amongst the other side, growing lack of respect with the military, etc.
- hoorayimhelping 11y ago>Even if the lack of anti-military hardware makes the second amendment almost pointless. The British military thought the same about a bunch of hicks with a few rifles living on the east coast of America. America's military thought the same thing about a bunch of tribal shepherds in Afghanistan. The point is, you don't need to match a military on hardware to defeat them.
- Retric 11y agoRead some history. I would suggest starting with US civil war which notably failed. The 'US' revolution was losing the war prior to significant aid from France. And this was vs. an oversea enemy using 1700's era weapons and armaments. Vietnam involved some direct military engagements vs. jets and other modern weaponry. There are a few successful uprising in modern history, and lots of crushed attempts vs. far worse military's than the modern US war machine.
- 15155 11y agoThe US Civil War didn't fail due to a lack of equivalent armaments, just to make that very clear.
- Retric 11y agoDepends on what you mean by equivalent. Honestly, if the south had the technology and manufacturing advantage it probably would have won as the overall military's started out fairly equivalent. The most famous of these guns, the Spencer carbine, could fire seven shots in 30 seconds. Like many other Civil War technologies, these weapons were available to Northern troops but not Southern ones: Southern factories had neither the equipment nor the know-how to produce them. http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/civil-war-technology http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/civil-war-t...
- hga 11y agoSeeing as how the NRA signed off on a ban of new licensed "fully automatic weapons" in the FOPA of '86, and I can't recall them in my politically aware lifetime challenging the NFA of '34's licensing regime for full auto-weapons, perhaps you might want to study up on this. If by "modern NRA" you mean the post-"assault weapons" ban NRA, extremely notable because it was the first Federal gun control measure they didn't support, you need a better analogy, one I can't think of. We've already given up so much I can't think of any "extreme product" that would fit the bill.
- brandonmenc 11y ago> Seeing as how the NRA signed off on a ban of new licensed "fully automatic weapons" in the FOPA of '86 You're correct, and I am aware because it comes up all the time. My off-the-cuff comment was more about the membership I've encountered than the official organization.
- rcurry 11y agoI just have never seen this - the NRA arguing that full automatic weapons should not be licensed. Do you have a citation? I'd be genuinely interested to read up on it.
- hga 11y agoI'm not aware they argued that even in 1934, when they were focused on removing handguns from the NFA's licencing and prohibitive tax, $3,500 in 2015 dollars (and that in a period where the Depression had gotten truly Great).
- 15155 11y agoI am amazed that this hasn't been successfully challenged via the "poll tax" argument.
- drzaiusapelord 11y agoThis seems like a misinterpretation to me. The NRA draws the line in many places, especially with anything that stinks of military hardware. Pro-choice advocacy has been on the rope for decades and with recent state laws many abortion access difficult or impossible for poorer women. For example, not is really fighting to overturn the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. NARAL's website concedes with this language, "NARAL Pro-Choice America does not oppose restrictions on abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy as long as there is an exception to protect the woman’s health." I think society is always going to have a discussion on what kinds of abortions are allowed and at what week. NARAL seems to be part of this conversation and doesn't oppose it. I don't think either group is special and both work with the status quo of advocacy and lobbying.
- hga 11y agoThe NRA draws the line in many places, especially with anything that stinks of military hardware. The latter turns out not to be the case. Yep, they allowed it for full auto weapons, and AP ammo, but for the first time ever refused to sign off on any and all "assault weapons" bills when that mess started in the late '80s. Otherwise, yeah, the "compromise" a lot, so much that I'm not a current member and have an alert set for 10 years having passed since they last tried to sell us out. Still has a few years left.
- douche 11y agoThe "assault weapon" label is complete horse-manure. With $100 of aftermarket components and a half hour, you can take a stock Ruger 10-22 and make it "scary" enough to qualify as an assault weapon, then break it down and reassemble it in it's perfectly innocuous hunting configuration.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoI think there is a sign bit inverted here - the NRA would be in the position of opposing "gun prohibition". Volstead-Act style prohibition of guns would result in gunrunning, which is arguably the nastiest form of organized crime. I am sure that propaganda tropes would be highly common between the Wayne Wheeler continuum and the NRA - there are not that many forms of propaganda.
- mschuster91 11y agoJust look at the millions of dollars pot alone creates in tax revenue. In a decade we will look back and think "how could we be so stupid for decades". And I'm looking forward when "harder" drugs like cocaine, meth and heroin are legalized or at least tolerated - no more drug turf wars, no more shadow states in Latin America, and especially far fewer deaths and medical issues from contaminated drugs. Drugs are actually pretty safe, what makes them so incredibly dangerous is the contamination happening in the supply chain, from unclean manufacturing over normal degradation due to improper handling to stretching at the dealer level.
- enraged_camel 11y agoCocaine and heroin for sure, but my understanding is that meth is a different category entirely and I'm not sure if it can be tolerated as easily as the others.
- Raphmedia 11y agoIf some hard drugs were tolerated, it would stop people for going to the extreme alternatives. Why would you risk losing an arm to Krokodil if you can buy heroin safely at the drugstore and take it in a controlled environment? Yes, you risk addiction. You risk ruining your life. But you do too with a lot of existing drugs. Alcohol comes to mind.
- MichaelGG 11y agoAs a nit: There's nothing really wrong with "Krokodol" which is just a slang name for desomorphine. The problems are due to poor manufacturing and unhygienic use. So you could just as well say "why risk taking street heroin when you can buy Bayer Heroin at the pharmacy".
- InclinedPlane 11y agoIt should be. The negative externalities of prohibition are so much worse than from abuse and addiction, even for meth, crack, whatever.
- seivan 11y agoI've thought the same way recently, in fact the anti-gun "zero compromise scorched earth policy" is part of the reason why I've grown to like the right to bear arms. Amongst other ideas that would be considered conservative.
- planfaster 11y agoDid you see Hillary a couple of days ago saying it would be worth it to look into a mandatory gun-buyback program like they did in Australia? Gun control has always been the appetizer for gun confiscation. EDIT: for those who think I'm misinterpreting: Clinton made the comments during a campaign stop in Keene, N.H., when an attendee asked about Australia’s 1996 and 2003 buy-back programs that collected roughly 700,000 banned semi-automatic rifles and other firearms. "I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged," Clinton responded. dublinben, please show me how I'm misinterpreting what she said rather than just accusing me of doing so.
- dublinben 11y agoYou're grossly misrepresenting what she actually said.
- forrestthewoods 11y agohttp://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/nra-hillary-clinton-guns-democrats/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/nra-hillary-clinton-g... ""I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged," she said in response to a question about Australia's nationwide buyback initiative that began in 1996." I, uh, would have to say that checks out?
- hga 11y agoAs Wikipedia puts it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia): Unlike the voluntary buybacks in the United States, Australian buybacks of 1996 and 2003 were compulsory, compensated surrenders of particular types of firearms made illegal by new gun laws. The financial compensation was paltry; that for being converted from a citizen to a subject...?
- forgingahead 11y agoBut one thing many don't know is that Prohibition did, in fact, reduce alcohol consumption: As Okrent told me, tax stamps from before and after Prohibition's passage suggest there was, indeed, a decline in drinking — one that was sustained for several years. What? If there is a large illegal markets for alcohol sales, how can tax stamps be considered an indication of alcohol sales?
- rootedbox 11y ago"tax stamps from before and after Prohibition's passage" because the after part?? less stamps sold post prohibition than pre would be an indication of less use.
- waterlesscloud 11y agoOr that the illegal trade carried on for a while after, thus reducing legal sales.
- johngalt 11y agoIf you've already built the infrastructure and practices to smuggle an illegal good, it is unlikely that you immediately start paying taxes once it becomes legal.
- joshmarinacci 11y agoThe illegal sale of something has risks and costs (obviously) so the criminals will only engage in it if the price of the good being sold is high enough. When prohibition started the price of alcohol went up to cover the risk of selling it illegally. Once prohibition ended the price dropped and it was no longer worth the risk to selling it illegally. However, you are correct that they had already built up the infrastructure and practices for smuggling, so they simply moved to other more profitable goods like guns, harder drugs, and people.
- pkinsky 11y agoAssuming the black-market networks created as a response to prohibition shut down completely, of course. They may have continued operating as a means of tax avoidance, leading to less taxed consumption post-prohibition.
- microcolonel 11y agoI can't really tell what they're trying to say here. The repression involved in the implementation of alcohol prohibition had an effect of pushing a common and integral part of society into the black market. The NRA is promoting the right to bear arms, and actually it would seem that the effect they're seeking should be the exact opposite. Effectively, as prohibition pushed a polite leisure into the black market. The NRA's goal appears to be the exact opposite: that is, to keep a polite leisure out of the black market. I don't think German understands the irony of this, because I get the impression that they want to compare the moral status of the prohibition movement to the moral status of the NRA.
- patorjk 11y agoHere's the part of the article that explains it: > The Anti-Saloon League knew that if you controlled the margins, you could win legislative majorities and even supermajorities. In any given district, they'd say, Look, 45 percent of the people are for the Democrat, and 45 percent of the people are for the Republican. Who controls the 10 percent of the middle? And that's what they fought for — those 10 percent who would vote for whomever the ASL told them to vote for. By picking only one issue and not caring what legislative candidates — state or federal — cared about in terms of other issues, they were able to have an enormous effect. It's a practice that's been copied to the letter — I don't know whether by design — by the NRA.
- hga 11y agoThe NRA didn't get overtly political until after the 1977 Cincinnati (annual meeting) Revolt. From my readings of the participants in that and the following efforts, the most commonly presented principle, by Neal Knox, was "When I feel the heat, I see the light." As in credibly threaten them with the prospect of spending more time with their families, and enough of them will adjust. Or be replaced, perforce. Ask the shade of Tom Foley, first Speaker of the House to lose reelection since before the Civil War. It helps that we're freaking huge, the NRA has 5 million dues paying members now, and influences 100 million plus gun owners.
- jsnider3 11y ago
- vaadu 11y ago"There was the incredible advocacy campaign from the Anti-Saloon League, whose anti-alcohol messaging looks like a more fervent version of the National Rifle Association's gun rights messaging today." You it it right there.
- AlwaysBCoding 11y agoAlso, Prohibition was enacted via a constitutional amendment, yet a large portion of people simply ignored it. It always gets understated what a massive crisis this ended up being for the integrity of the US Constitution. If one amendment was seen as optional by an increasingly larger group of people, maybe the others would be as well. It was important for the integrity of the government that they repeal the amendment. I have a feeling if prohibition were enacted via a complicated loophole like the one that keeps the horrible 21 drinking age afloat it would have been much harder to repeal in full.
- lisper 11y agoYou can actually see this happening today with abortion, which is becoming increasingly unobtainable in the U.S. despite being (theoretically) a Constitutional right.
- agarden 11y agoInteresting observation. There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion and it being a right, though. So what we are actually seeing is widespread disrespect for Supreme Court rulings taking hold. The recent ruling on gay marriage is only going to accelerate that trend.
- mindslight 11y agoWhy would anyone respect the judiciary when all 10 of the unit tests from the Bill of Rights are presently failing?
- tomjakubowski 11y agoI haven't heard anything about soldiers quartering in the homes of private Americans without their consent.
- mindslight 11y ago
- oldmanjay 11y agoThere is no shortage of people who know exactly how you are supposed to live. Some of them get organized enough to convince the power structures to force you. I oppose these efforts wholeheartedly even when I agree with the aims. Unintended consequences are the order of the day when you dabble in saving people.
- pg_is_a_butt 11y agoharrah's paid $20,000,000 to bill frist to attach the UIGEA to the SAFE PORT ACT. the safe port act was considered must pass on both sides of the political aisle. bill frist attached the UIGEA without a vote, with 1 minute left in session. no questions, no changes... just verbatim text as provided by harrah's is now law that we must all follow or be sent to jail. harrah's did this for 2 reasons: 1) they were denied a sportsbook and wanted to hurt their competition with sportsbooks... so you'll notice the UIGEA explicitly makes gambling on fantasy sports legal. so we get 1000 fanduel and draftkings ads a day. 2) they operated poker rooms and wanted internet poker to be illegal... so, now it is. america is corrupt, and paul graham is an american.
- forrestthewoods 11y agoComparing a group that wants to take things away to a group that wants things to not be taken away is questionable.
- mcantelon 11y agoAs soon as I started reading the piece I wondered "who is Vox going to try to smear with this piece?". Second second in gave the answer.
- anigbrowl 11y agoThere's a lightly fictionalized account of how this was engineered in Richard (Manchurian Candidate) Condon's largely-forgotten novel Mile High.
- dools 11y agoAnyone looking for a brilliant and comprehensive analysis of prohibition should check out "Chasing the Scream".
- rosege 11y agoDrugs dont need to be illegal because nature provides the penalty already.