JFK and the NRA

[Oyeboten]

I've read somewhere that the NRA was much different during that time - primarily education oriented and not very political. That might explain why a Democratic President was able to give them a nod back then.

Yes...this is my impression also.

The NRA sponsored many Civillian Marksmanship programmes, and, also sold Military Surplus Rifles and Pistols at very low prices, through these programmes to qualified enrollees or other Candidates upon their completion of various courses.

The NRA had no need to be 'political' back then, since there was no 'politics' effecting the use and ownership of Arms by the Citizenry ( other than the limitations imposed by the Gun Control acts of the early '30s, which had forbade the free ownership of Machine Guns and short Rifles and short Shotguns and 'Silencers' and so on, or which required a Registration and Tax upon those items, anyway ).

[doc540]

Yes...this is my impression also.

The NRA sponsored many Civillian Marksmanship programmes, and, also sold Military Surplus Rifles and Pistols at very low prices, through these programmes to qualified enrollees or other Candidates upon their completion of various courses.

The NRA had no need to be 'political' back then, since there was no 'politics' effecting the use and ownership of Arms by the Citizenry ( other than the limitations imposed by the Gun Control acts of the early '30s, which had forbade the free ownership of Machine Guns and short Rifles and short Shotguns and 'Silencers' and so on, or which required a Registration and Tax upon those items, anyway ).

And aren't we glad they did?

In 1963 I mowed yards for the $23 it took for my dad to buy an M1 carbine which showed up in cosmoline.

Still have it.

[Will_Paladin]

gvf, you've spoken a lot about Viet-Nam. I'd just like to know one thing. I'm asking an honest question and not
being critical. Are you a Viet-Nam veteran? Did you have "boots on the ground" there? I'm wondering, as I'm sure
others are, if you speak from experience or books? In case you're wondering, I am a Viet-Nam vet. Some of us know
a lot more than the books know. Best to you.
Will_Paladin

[Oyeboten]

And aren't we glad they did?

In 1963 I mowed yards for the $23 it took for my dad to buy an M1 carbine which showed up in cosmoline.

Still have it.

That is so wonderful!


I wish my dad had been more on the Ball or into it...then I could have done the same!

[ace]

And now, hopefully back to the reason for the thread: the NRA and political leader 50 years ago:

seriously, you've spent as much or more time here debating (and defending) jfk and disputing what others have said than ther rest of us combined. obviously you're fond of jfk, i grew up fond of him too but i learned things over the ensuing years that displaced that fondness with cold hard facts of the true man.
i could dispute some of what you've said but i'm going to follow the advice of your above quoted comment. if you really want this thread to stay as to what's in that quote, my advice is follow your own advice in your comment as i have chosen to do.

[Oyeboten]

Well, even for me it is pretty hard not to drift into talking about JFK himself, or about important events and conditions we may associate with him.

It's just so tempting...

And, just how much can one say about JFK and the NRA?


So...


I am sure we have not sinned enough to be worth mentioning, to meander a little...especially if we are kind enough to loop it back into the original context now and then.


Of course, the ( I would say, disingenuous ) 'politics' which opportuned upon the emotional distress felt across the Land, occasioned by the several assassinations, of JFK, RFK, MLK and whoever else during that decade...did end up inviting or coercing the NRA into what by then, became the politicized or emotionalized topic of 'Guns', and the the NRA's interest to preserve and advocate some perspective and clearity for the American People's Historic right to own and use them.


JFK would have had some interesting things to say about all that, I am sure. And or he may have been one to have insisted we steer by better Lights.

[gvf]

gvf, you've spoken a lot about Viet-Nam. I'd just like to know one thing. I'm asking an honest question and not
being critical. Are you a Viet-Nam veteran? Did you have "boots on the ground" there? I'm wondering, as I'm sure
others are, if you speak from experience or books? In case you're wondering, I am a Viet-Nam vet. Some of us know
a lot more than the books know. Best to you.
Will_Paladin

No I wasn't - medical deferment. But it was the main topic of my generation and of the country for many years - along with Civil Rights - and a lot of reading and friends who were there, whole, wounded, dead. As well, having gone thru that period witnessing tons of vitriol and blame showered on everyone (including me - who absolutely hated Johnson at the time) I shy away now from the same thing - and am more understanding and forgiving of those at the time, whatever their role, than then. So, when I hear incredibly complex and gut-wrenching times boiled down in retrospect to a neat packet of blame, well, I think the past when it's the present is a murky affair with struggling human beings trying to find a way thru the fog - often going backwards by mistake.

Highest praise for your service and great sacrifice to the country!

[gvf]

seriously, you've spent as much or more time here debating (and defending) jfk and disputing what others have said than ther rest of us combined. obviously you're fond of jfk, i grew up fond of him too but i learned things over the ensuing years that displaced that fondness with cold hard facts of the true man.
i could dispute some of what you've said but i'm going to follow the advice of your above quoted comment. if you really want this thread to stay as to what's in that quote, my advice is follow your own advice in your comment as i have chosen to do.

(Yes I am, but I will respond to inaccuracies, including now your post [which was off-thread]: what I posted about Vietnam was a response to prior off-thread statements, and which continued to pop in. I think your own measure of "the true man" - aside from being as inaccurate as hero-worship - leads you to ignore that because you agree with those off-thread posts and focus on mine which you don't. Good chance anyway. I am well aware of JFK's faults along with the great promise many believe he showed - it's that he was not the Devil of Vietnam as intimated. And I said so.)

I think another reason the NRA was less political - if it was, I was not a shooter back then - is my belief and memory that guns were not a political issue - because violent crime rates from criminal guns was lower - this became the opposite case somewhere near then because large cities began to be flooded with hard drugs and the guns that went along with them- both to attack and for citizens to defend against attack. But this may have been a tad before that wave - that's an impression anyway. Maybe some know more facts about that.

If it is true it means there was no need for anyone to be political including the NRA. Self-Defense was not as major a need.

[RDak]

I was pretty young when he was president so I don't remember specifics but I DO REMEMBER that he was gun friendly.

ETA: Do you older guys think he would have supported the 1968 GCA the way LBJ did?

[ohiobuckeye]

......ETA: Do you older guys think he would have supported the 1968 GCA the way LBJ did?

He may have liked the idea personally, but would probably have viewed it as a bad political move. Like him or not, he was a pretty smart cookie with some equally sharp advisors. Kennedy's politics were arguably similar to what we now see from most "conservative" republicans. Both parties have swung sharply to the left since 1963.