An analysis of the anti-gun and pro-gun stances of the National Congressional Delegations for New York, Texas, Connecticut, and South Carolina, in the firearms restrictions controversy of the 1960s

Abstract

In the absence of any historiographical debate regarding the firearms restrictions controversy of the 1960s this study breaks new ground. By focusing attention on a sizeable body of individuals who investigated and debated the pros and cons of gun control throughout the 1960s the attempt has been made to shed light on the confusing melee of interests, beliefs, and fears, which directed opinions on the subject. With the national legislators from New York and Connecticut falling predominantly into the anti-gun camp and those from the other two adopting in the main a pro-gun stance, using votes on the Gun Control Act of 1968 as a reference point, the opportunity has been presented for a close study of the arguments behind each position, and for suggestions to be made as to where the strengths and weaknesses of each faction would appear to have lain.

For the national congressional delegations from New York, Texas, Connecticut and South Carolina, there were four main arenas of debate in the firearms restrictions controversy of the 1960s. One, set up by advocates of such restrictions, centred around the proposition that gun controls were an effective tool against gun violence. It was in this area that anti-gun factions seemed at their strongest. The latter three arenas of debate centred around the separate claims of opponents that most of the firearms restrictions under discussion amounted to a violation of the 'individual liberties' of law-abiding owners/would be owners of guns, an invasion of constitutionally defined states' rights, and, finally, an infringement of a constitutional or even natural right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It was in these three arenas where the position of pro-gun factions appeared most forbidding. A fifth arena of debate concerning the extent to which the congressional delegations under question chose to accuse opponents or proponents of firearms restrictions of placing the fate of the domestic small arms industry too close to the heart of their objectives, was of less prominence.

More information

Identifiers

Catalogue record

Export record

ASCII CitationAtomBibTeXData Cite XMLDublin CoreDublin CoreEP3 XMLEndNoteHTML CitationHTML CitationHTML ListJSONMETSMODSMPEG-21 DIDLOpenURL ContextObjectOpenURL ContextObject in SpanRDF+N-TriplesRDF+N3RDF+XMLRIOXX2 XMLReferReference ManagerSimple Metadata