Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Slam the NRA. Again. Still.

1. …And I'll join the JPFO when they cease to be a fringe organization that uses misinterpretation of the law and misstatments of the historical record to push their agenda

   I'm guessing that means my JPFO membership and Zelman's NRA membership will cross in the mail.

   I'll apologize in advance for stereotyping, but really, shouldn't an organization called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership be able to find a few lawyers to put on their staff? Or maybe to proofread their polemics? Apparently Zelman has never heard of the Incorporation Doctrine (specifically, that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states unless it is specifically "incorporated" to them via the 14th amendment.) Zelman's assertion that state-issued concealed carry permits are unconstitutional is both factually and legally incorrect.

   Even if/when the RKBA is incorporated to the states (probably in the MacDonald case that the Court just heard) it will not be an unfettered right, because there are no unfettered or unlimited rights, no matter how fervently 2nd amendment extremists might wish there were.

   Zelman's statement that genocides were preceded by gun control acts is also a misleading statement. Germany's gun control act was put in place by the Weimar government, not the Nazis who followed them. Furthermore, the assumption that, had the Jews been armed, they'd have been able to resist the holocaust is not supported by any serious (non-biased) history. After all, the Jews in the Warsaw uprising were pretty well armed and that didn't keep the German army from smashing them. The truth is that it takes a lot more than just guns in civilian hands to stop a genocide (and it takes a lot more than guns in the hand of the government to start one.)

   • I have never heard so much nonsense in my life, and I’m eighty years old.

     • Mazeltov!

2. While the poster Albright has numerous facts WRONG, and a borderline slur "shouldn’t an organization called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership be able to find a few lawyers to put on their staff", let us just take one "fact" and work with that, "After all, the Jews in the Warsaw uprising were pretty well armed and that didn’t keep the German army from smashing them."

   From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprisi… The Ghetto fighters (numbering some 400 to 1,000 by April 19) were armed primarily with pistols and revolvers. Just a few rifles and automatic firearms smuggled into the Ghetto were available. The insurgents had little ammunition, and relied heavily on improvised explosive devices and incendiary bottles; more weapons were supplied throughout the uprising or captured from the Germans. Some weapons were hand-made by resistance: sometimes such weapons worked, other times they jammed repeatedly. In his report, Stroop wrote his forces were able to recover the "booty" consisting of:

   Seven Polish rifles, one Russian and one German rifle, 59 pistols of various calibers, several hundred incendiary bottles, home-made explosives, infernal machines with fuses, a large amount of explosives and ammunition for weapons of all calibers, including some machine gun ammunition.

   This is what you call heavily armed? A statist would say that. A union LEO who has the interests of of his pay and bennies before The Bill of Rights would say that. You Sir, have a problem with facts and truth, just like the current fraud in the Whitehouse. Me thinks doth does protest to much….

   I am not a member of JPFO, or the NRA.

3. Toaster: You're missing the point. The Warsaw Ghetto Jews were as well armed as any civilian owning firearms would have been. Against an army with machine guns, tanks, aircraft and artillery, such weapons only mean that it takes a little bit longer for the enemy to destroy you. Armed civilians, by themselves, cannot prevent a genocide, especially if their enemy doesn't care about what others think.

   Ask yourself this: What would have happened if the Jews had tried to arm themselves as a means of resisting the Final Solution in the years before WWII? Had they done so, and had they resisted an arrest or fought back violently against the Brownshirts, it would not have prevented the Holocaust, it would most likely have accelerated it because then the Nazi's could have justified any harsh responses against the Jews by characterizing their resistance as an armed insurrection, and brought down the full force of the German military on them, with the full acquiescence of the non-Jewish population.

   The notion that genocide can be prevented simply by arming civilians is a fantasy, like Marxism or Libertarianism it's driven by those who see the world as they wish it was instead of the way it is.

   • I'd add the example of the events at Waco. The residents of that compound were heavily-armed, and even held their own in the shootout with the ATF, but ultimately had no defense against armored vehicles and tear gas.

     • Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

       Tench Coxe

       http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

       AT-4+ citizen= unusable military crewed Armored Vehicle used in violation of posse comitatus to BURN women and children to death. How brave of them.

       Since you insist that We the People should have a "permit" for a simple revolver issued by a government apparatchik, I can imagine your horrified right down to your shoes by Tench Coxe's statement…and my example. Silly straw man, permission is for kids…

       • Ellsworth Toohey: "Mr. Roark, we’re alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me in any words you wish."

         Howard Roark: "But I don't think of you!"

         • Wow, you know how to win your point with sparkling conversation. The sticks and stones routine may work good on the playground, but with the new breed of national socialists it will get us all killed. No wonder the NRA has devolved into a rubber stamp of beltway "republicans". And no wonder the steady long march of disarmament has continued under the fudd's only LEO worshiping club the NRA has turned into. I truly hope Ted can bring common sense change. Then it might be worth it to put up with the daily begging for money NRA membership brings.

   • Mr (apparently not at) Albright says:

     …. the Nazi’s could have justified any harsh responses against the Jews by characterizing their resistance as an armed insurrection and have brought down the full force of the German military on them, with the full acquiescence of the non-Jewish population ….

     You mean, just like the Nazis and Europe’s acquiescent and cooperative non-Jewish population did?

     Gee! Whiz!

     That’d have been a bit hard to take!

4. Donal Fagan:

   I’d add the example of the events at Waco. The residents of that compound were heavily-armed, and even held their own in the shootout with the ATF, but ultimately had no defense against armored vehicles and tear gas.

   Countless examples. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the SLA shootouts in the mid-70s, etc. For that matter, look back into history at the likes of the Little Bighorn battle. A tactical "victory" for the Indians that only ensured their eventual defeat as the country demanded that the rebellious tribes be tracked down and subdued.

   • The point isn't "could armed civilians win a war" the point is "do civilians have the right to bear arms in their own defense."

     The answer is a resounding yes. Your statements sound to me like you're basically saying "Well you'll never win against a superiorly armed opponent, so you might as well not try." From there, "might as well not try" could easily become "might as well not have guns."

     The very SPIRIT of America is civilians using arms to defend themselves.

     I've agreed with many of your comments in the past, but the subtext I'm reading here (which may be incorrect) is borderline offensive.

     • You do realize that you have erected a straw man that bears no relation to what Martin was actually arguing, don't you?

     • Not sure what you mean by "subtext." I'm simply addressing this:

       7. When the NRA forcefully and persistently brings up the incontestable fact that every major genocide of the 20th Century was preceded by “gun control” policies. Disarmed millions became the victims of government sponsored or condoned mass murder.

       Zelman's apparent assertion is that the Holocaust was enabled by the lack of guns in civilian hands.

       My poiny is that it's not that simple, that if the Jews had firearms, and if they had used them against the Nazis, they would have been branded as terrorists and insurrectionists and dealt with the way a totalitarian government always deals with its enemies – with a ruthless and indiscriminate level of force that no representative government would tolerate. Meaning that the presence of handguns and rifles in their hands would ultimately not have made much of a difference for them.

       It's over-the-top statements like that that turn people away from organizations like the JPFO. They preach to the choir, and the whole thing becomes an echo chamber.

       Like it or not, political power in America is in the center, not at the fringes. By placing themselves on the extreme fringe of American politics JPFO essentially deals itself out of the game. The NRA, by contrast, knows that in order to justify its existence, it has to stay in that game. And it stays in that game by staying in the middle, not by adhering to the beliefs of its most extreme elements.

       • "Like it or not, political power in America is in the center, not at the fringes."

         So Obama and his followers are "moderates"

         Well, I know a RINO when I hear one.

         I am sure that Ted is not a moderate when it comes to American values and freedoms. Your screed in so many words name him as an extremist without the courage and conviction to call him it outright. You are willing to do this because of your playground pissing contest with a rival pro gun author.

         There is no extreme in supporting Freedom and Liberty. Your position is of an Obot, and is bankrupt morally and intellectually. You say that if the Jews took up arms they would be labeled terrorists. Funny, the tea party just took up signs and peaceful protest and earned the same label. When we talk about Jews taking up arms, it is not in offensive war against a government they do not like. It is to defend themselves against a predatory government directly involved in assaulting their liberty and directly threatening their lives. Just because a Government passes a law, does not make it right. Americans have a long history of saying "hell no" to tyranny. Even today, despite "moderates" attempt to deliver this country into the hands of outright marxists, The majority of citizens say "hell no" to the fraud in chief and his shadow government that works day and night on the destruction of the Republic. You Sir and your "friend" are ether spectacularly naive, or a false flag naves used as a socko puppets for ad hominem attacks for the "regime" and to counsel "moderation" and point out that traditional American values are "extreme". In better times you would have been ignored as a fool or corrected in a manly way for your idiocy. These days all good men must confront your poison to prevent the next generation from becoming infected by sloth and ignorance.

         …Nuff said about your anti semitic, anti- freedom, anti-American "story". This is not Der Sturmer. And I find it extreme and offensive for you to even bring Ted Nugent into your muck throwing. He is a fine example of what a REAL American stands for.

5. To get a bit more back on the topic at hand, i.e. Zelman's urinating contest with Terrible Ted, I think we have to acknowledge a few Truths (seeing as how "truth" is in our name and all.)

   The most fundamental Truth that has to be acknowledged is that in order for an organization to be effective in politics, it has to have the ability to influence or effect elections. For all their sound and fury, JPFO and similar organizations do not have this power and the NRA does.

   Furthermore, the reason the NRA has the political power it does is not in spite of its middle-of-the-road stance, but because of it. The NRA is also heavily involved in very non-political activities such as training certification, firearms competition, and firearms education ventures – which show that the organization has utility to people other than its members.

   Organizations like JPFO and GOA sabotage their own efforts with their their less than candid approach to history and law, as well as strident (sometimes shrill) tone of their message. As noted "gun violence victim" John Lennon once observed, "If you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao/You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow." Ditto with waving the bloody shirt of the holocaust as a means of selling your pro-gun message (as if the only difference between Nazi Germany and America is the presence of guns in civilian hands.)

   • But the tactic of the age seems to be to drown out any moderate voices and insist on a party line. The reason why I am reading this site rather than some of the other gun sites is that Farago has committed TTAG to entertaining alternate views.

6. My God, What have I landed in here?

   So it was OK for the Jews to be herded onto cattle cars and murdered like animals? That the RIGHT of self defense, even as a futile one, is not to passed off lightly. MEN prefer if need be to die like MEN instead of animals. Why this is lost on you I can only speculate. Each to his own, but I will tell you to save your breath if your answer to tyranny is to roll over and wait for the Einsatzkommando. Help yourself. I have other plans.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzkommando

   Countless insurgencies have won or continued to survive for long periods of time against conventional military's firepower throughout history. An unfair fight is not always a losing one.

   And as for moderate voices, those have brought us to the place America is today. There is no room for moderation in defense of the Liberty and Freedom left to us by generations past. Period. Moderation is surrender, and that is why people cannot see that it less about firepower than tactics, training and morale. The will to win is the deciding factor. Having the equipment to win helps also…

   I will leave you to your Jew bashing and milk-toast politics. Enjoy your chains, as you picked them out and put them on yourself.

   • You all double talk a lot, Simple “A man with a plan or preparation will almost
     always beat out someone without one” George W. said guns are “the liberty
     teeth” halluhuh

7. Viking death with sword in hand

8. Years ago your organization sent me to a free automatic weapons school at Front Sight Fire Arms Training Institute, for that I would like to say thank you! Somehow over the years I lost touch with your organization, perhaps because you didn’t badger me for money like the N.R.A. does, and my membership expired without my notice. I completely agree with your views of the importance of citizens being armed. The greatest threat to the survival of a free state is its own corrupt government and I have been victim to several episodes of that. Please tell me how I can once again join your organization. Like I explained last time, I am not jewish. Hopefully that has not become a factor.
   Keep up your noble efforts.
   Yours in freedom,
   Burt Vincent

9. ” You Sir and your “friend” are ether spectacularly naive, or a false flag naves used as a socko puppets for ad hominem attacks for the “regime” and to counsel “moderation” and point out that traditional American values are “extreme”. In better times you would have been ignored as a fool or corrected in a manly way for your idiocy. These days all good men must confront your poison to prevent the next generation from becoming infected by sloth and ignorance.”

   *DING DING DING DING DING!!!* – If you noticed the last name ‘Albright’, it clearly show this guy is most likely a NWO globalist trying to downplay the 2nd amendment with smokescreen, deflection, and distortion tactics. They are vile snakes that use treachery to influence even just a few people on message boards, or even on youtube. I’ve seen them before and they are disgusting. They care nothing for their fellow man or for truth or for freedom itself. They are cowards who use subversion to dominate others.

   I didn’t even have to read much of what he said…just a few words from his sentences set off the alarms of the Marxist-fascist propaganda that the populace should be weak and subservient to those who are ‘strong’. See, the right to any weapon is one that can’t be ever taken away as long as there is opposition or enemies of a people, whether it be for good or an evil cause. I would never expect Iran or N. Korea, or whatever rogue nation that pops up next, to NOT desire the possession of a nuclear arm. It would be foolish to think otherwise. The same goes for a populace. It would be foolish for a populace to think that it would be able to live at peace from weapons due to arms control. There is no room for it today, especially, since the globalist agenda of the NWO announced by one George H.W. Bush on *gasp* 9-11-1990 (coincidence…I think not). Lose your weapons and die like dogs…that is the message people like this Albright truly preach behind their arrogance.

10. The Holocaust Story that many commenters here refer to is post-war propaganda (WW2 propaganda, a war that ended almost 70 yrs ago.)
    See sites such as CODOH and IHR to learn more. The video ‘One Third of the Hohocaust’ is a great place to start. Most blindly accept the narrative they were told in junior HS or saw in movies. The horrible pictures of dead bodies we all saw were real, but the Story that goes along with them is not. Anyone that spends even 30 minutes looking into the ridiculous claims of the Story will start having very serious doubts. There is a reason many nations now have laws against Holocaust Denial. Since the Story cannot stand any intelligent scrutiny, the threat of imprisonment is the only way to keep the intelligent minority in line.

Comments are closed.