No, I'm pointing out that the GCA '68 evolved out of a host of gun control bills that had been written, debated, revised, argued and rejected over a period of 7 years, growing out of the JFK and subsequent assassinations. Dodd was deeply involved in crafting gun control legislation throughout that period. Most of the language that wound up in the GCA had been reviewed repeatedly. GCA was the culmination of a seven year process, not a last minute inspiration.
The notion that, after 7 years, Dodd suddenly recalled his old copy of the Nazi law, sent it off for translation and then swept the GCA board clean with a "near verbatim copy" is naive beyond belief!
Once again, if this is the case, then why could Dodd not have “evolved” the bill further by including the provisions from NWL’38 in the bill? What documentation do you have to prove the bill was in its final form prior to this? Since Dodd had knowledge of this law, since he had it translated, why could he not have put very similar provisions in it prior to the letter from the Library of Congress? Tell me straight up that Dodd could not have revised the bill if what you are claiming is true?
If you have no documentation to back up your speculation than admit that this is nothing but your opinion, end of story.
Pretty cute - you inserted [question about Dingle] when in fact the question you had previously insisted that I answer was about the Dodd letter - and I answered that question. If you can't be honest, there's little point in discussion with you.
I can't explain why Rep. Dingell compared the GAC'68 to NWL'38 because I can't get into his brain. Politicians say a lot of dumb things - and that was certainly one of them.
Of course I instered it, that's what the brackest are used for. I made the insertion and clearly marked it with “[]” to make sure there was no misunderstanding of what was being referred to and for no other reason.
Here’s my original question : Rep. John Dingle (D-Michigan) made some objections in the House debate over this law that it resmebled too closely the NLW'38 (Nazi Law on Weapons 1938). He was attacked by Senator Tydings (D-MD) who I believe was from Maryland, and Dingle backed down. Why did this happen if they were not alike?
You can find it on page 23.
Here’s your evasion on the same page two posts down:
Probably because Rep. John Dingell, in a hearing before Dodd's committee, compared the proposed legislation to the 1938 Nazi law! If you were accused of copying something, wouldn't you want to check it out? Do you really imagine that on such a controversial topic, Dodd could read a document in mid-July, draw up a "near verbatim copy" and make it a law by October?
If you admitted you had no answer the first time we could have avoided this. Don't pretend to get all huffy and puffy, a sixth grader might be impressed with it but that's about all. By the way, Dingle is still in office. Contact him, and find out for yourself, he’s an interesting person. He and Ted Kennedy are the only remaining members from this episode.
So if GCA '68 is a "near verbatim copy" of the NWL, it must also ban Jews from manufacturing firearms and ammunition. Maybe I missed that part? The fact is that Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and almost every other nation in the world requires a license for those who want to manufacture firearms and ammunition. Does that make them all "near verbatim" copies of Nazi law?.
I said it was “near” ( you know, close, similar, etc.), I never said it was EXACT. If GAC’68 only had this one similar provision, then any claim that the two laws were related would be a stretch. However, combined with the other similarities together in one law combined with the letter in the possession of the author who wrote the law is what the issue is about. If the other nations you mentioned passed the same laws under the same circumstances, then yes. Otherwise your comparison of other European nations is just a smoke screen and has nothing to do with it.(GOOD GRIEF, AND YOU KEEP WHINING ABOUT RIDICULOUS ASSERTIONS AND THIS IS ALL YOU CAN CLAIM?! You also need to reads things a bit closer too.)
I have also scanned GCA '68 for the "near verbatim" Nazi requirements for national weapons acquisition permits for handguns [Waffenerwerbschein] and national carry permits [Waffenschein], exemptions for government and party members, and - oddly enough - the exemption of licensed hunters from the Waffenerwerbschein requirement, and the ban on hollow-point .22 rimfire ammo. I have also been unable to find, in GCA '68, any "near verbatim copy" of the Nazi law giving local police discretion on ownership of firearms, swords or knives. Maybe my copy is incomplete somehow?
The GCA '68 is primarily focused on firearm imports and manufacturing, transfers and mail-order and interstate sales and shipment. It imposes NO national permit requirements for individual firearm acquisition or for carrying firearms.
I will gladly address the questions regarding other areas of the two laws when we get to them, so hang onto them for now. I need to go one issue at a time because I have little time to post. You made a demand that I post where the laws were similar, and I posted one example, and I will post more AFTER you fulfill the similar demand I now make on you. Please post a section from each law where they are distinctly different to prove your claim that they are not alike. Include the Section Number, Section Title, and subsection number if applicable, from each law so I can go directly to it and read it. Tell me briefly what the section differences are. I don’t want or need a dissertation from you.
I await your posting with the information.
