The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership believe the Nazis introduce gun control as a prelude to European genocide. What’s more, they contend that America’s federal gun control legislation traces its roots to the German laws. Over at fredricksburg.com, the debate over this information has spilled into the letters to the editor section. Mr. Stephen Miller reckons German gun control predates the Nazi regime, and that society’s well-being takes precedence over individual rights.
Letter-writer Shawn Smart, like most gun fanatics, is reluctant to let historical facts interfere with his agenda [“To be less free? Take away our guns,” April 11].
The Nazis did not enact any new gun-control measures until 1938, five years after Hitler came to power, and those were aimed specifically at the Jews.
The gun restrictions Mr. Smart refers to were actually enacted by the Weimar Republic. In 1919, Germany was in a state of anarchy, economic chaos, and revolution. Armed militias of all political factions engaged in street battles, and fear of Bolshevism was rampant.
The 1919 Regulation of the Council of the People’s Delegates on Weapons Possession banned the civilian possession of all firearms and ammunition, and demanded their surrender “immediately.” Provisions were made for gun ownership by people of “undoubted reliability” who demonstrated a “need” for a gun.
Mr. Smart states he would respond to an armed robber in kind. How would he remove a gun from its holster or concealed location, disengage the safety, aim, and fire before his assailant shoots him? Mr. Smart must be either exceptionally fast at “quick-draw” or have a death wish.
Our country’s irrational and illogical obsession with guns has enabled the National Rifle Association to become the de facto fourth branch of our government.
There are infringements and abridgements of our “freedoms” made in the causes of public safety, decency, and common sense. If you don’t believe this, indulge in child pornography, yell “fire” in a crowd for the purpose of inciting a panic, walk naked around your neighborhood, take a 10-year-old to an R-rated movie, use certain profanities in public, text-message while driving, smoke in a restaurant, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
What makes the Second Amendment so sacrosanct?
Stephen Miller
Spotsylvania
This is the problem with strident, shrill groups like JPFO and GOA, and why they’ll never really match the NRA in terms of political power. Like other strident political groups, they have no problem playing fast and loose with the truth if it suits their purposes (sounds kind of like most pro-gun control groups, in fact.)
The other frequent thing you’ll hear is that the Japanese never invaded the West Coast of the US because of a fear of armed citizens, and a bogus quote (or misquote) from none other than Admiral Yammamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attacks, is used to bolster this mistaken assertion. (for those who haven’t studied much Pacific war history, the notion of a Japanese invasion of the West Coast or even Hawaii is laughable; the Japanese had a difficult enough time controlling the areas in Asia and the Pacific they did occupy.)
I take this rambling letter to assert that regulation of gun ownership and use is no more harmful than regulation of other rights. The examples he gives, though, are a mixed bag of rights, legal privileges and social sensibilities become law.
He would have made a stronger argument if he limited himself to other constitutional rights that are similarly regulated, such as his example of freedom of speech vs inciting panic. But as no regulation denies you a voice because you might incite panic with it, that doesn’t support denying gun ownership because you might commit a crime with it.
I see his point about concealed carry, and the more I think about it, the less I believe that carrying a concealed gun would ever protect me from any but the most careless assailant, but that’s a matter for self-regulation.
And apparently Godwin was right.
Comments are closed.