"No Guns for Jews"

Powerful video (in five parts here) about gun control from the perspective of Judaism, now on Youtube.

Part 1 starts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H-qOUmCrIU&feature=related

the driving force behind the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms, was one of the most well respected figures in firearms rights in the last
50 years. http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/az-condolence.htm

supports a "no guns for jews" bill, you can count on me to oppose them.

That also goes for a "no guns for hispanics bill," "no guns for black people bill," "no guns for the Irish bill" etc etc etc.

Edit: unrecced for implied strawman.

But if it was "no guns for ANYONE but cops", that would be okay, right? So long as they aren't singling any other particular group out...

I really think it should be all or nothing if the goal is equality. Otherwise there will always be discrimination.

Even with all their Gun Control, they aren't willing to completely disarm their police.

Not regular beat cops, who do not want to be armed. There is much more of a sense of fair play in Britain between the "cops and robbers". Criminals prefer not to be armed with guns. They much prefer non-lethal weapons, as do the police. This also results in better community relations instead of an "us against them" mentality that tends to prevail here. British cops are civilians, first and foremost and not a paramilitary force.
Obviously, there are those criminals who don't play by the rules and specially armed units are activated. They are also used for special duties at airports and embassies where terrorist threats are more likely to occur. Overall it works pretty well.

You may find this interesting.

www.metfed.org.uk/support/.../1214552596Office%20Constable.pdf - Similar

Huh? Knives, clubs, fists and boots, etc. are "non-lethal"?

I would go so far as to say there is no such thing as a "non-lethal weapon". There are weapons that can be employed in less-than-lethal ways, but that is no guarantee.

Note how many people have been killed with tazers...

The police there are not supposed to kill, but use sufficient force to apprehend.
Between June 2001 and June 2007, there were at least 245 cases of deaths of subjects soon after having been shocked using Tasers. Of these cases:

* In 7 cases, medical examiners said Tasers were a cause or a contributing factor or could not be ruled out as a cause of death.
* In 16 cases coroners and other officials stated that a Taser was a secondary or contributory factor of death.
* In dozens of cases, coroners cited excited delirium as cause of death. Excited delirium has been questioned as a medical diagnosis.<60>
* Several deaths occurred as a result of injuries sustained in struggles. In a few of these cases head injury due to falling after being shocked contributed to later death. Some police departments, like that of Clearwater, Florida, have tried to eradicate such incidents by prohibiting taser use when the suspect is in danger of falling.

Not bad for a 6 year period.

By what standard? How so? Seeing as how gun violence is only 8% of violent crime, I'd say that claim is unsupportable from the start.

Sticking a knife into another person is a lot more personal than pointing a gun from across the street or a passing car. How many drive by stabbings do you hear about?

No-one claims you can stab someone from 50 feet away.

Come on, I know you can do better than to build such absurd strawmen.

If someone were to attack you, would you prefer they use a gun or their fists or a knife, regardless of whether you were armed or not?
Pick the one you fell you'd stand the best chance of defending yourself against.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5inDd8dV7Rf7d6xthbNzr9vQBjkXQ?docId=CNG.bfb8229dcf908f07a113483065bb30aa.2d1



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8503230/Man-dies-after-shooting-in-West-London.html



More at the telegraph's crime section..

but it's helluva lot better than here in terms of gun violence.

I mean, that would be the measure that best indicates that it worked, correct?

Remember gun crime in the UK includes BB guns, toy guns, CO2 guns, fake guns, possessing ammo. So compared to the US, the numbers tally differently.

One guy responsible for half the gun murders. Bring in more guns and see how it gets reduced. More guns for more nutters. Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that. Shit, I just realized he could have thrown knives at those people.

I mean, if you're going to hold up an already rare event as the litmus test, and one happens after corrective action.. surely the action wasn't enough, right?

*snort*

And by that time, it had been regarded as being hopelessly out of touch with reality for at least ten years. It's not a good basis for forming one's ideas about British police and criminals.

nice try though.

I even used those nifty quotation marks.

Unlike some, I don't interject my personal biases into my quotes.

aren't ya. If you want to use the suffering of my people to support your personal gun agenda, at least be honest about it.

And IMLHO, the issue isn't with all Jews, just the ones outside Israel. Your brothers and sisters in Israel recognize and accept the need for being armed.

Considering the rampant Anti-Semitism in the US before WWII, I think many baby boomer, and later, American Jews are naive to the extreme to think nothing bad could ever happen to them here. But I guess that's a form of American Exceptionalism that's perfect acceptable, isn't it?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You sound like my six-year-old niece, who can't stand to have different foods touching on her plate.

Get. A. Grip.

Edit: P.S. Your obvious insinuation is extremely vile. Take it back to Freeperville, they're missing you.

:rofl:

If you want to use the suffering of my people to support your personal gun agenda


Fucking PRICELESS!

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The people in power will always find a way to protect themselves (be it a race in Nazi Germany or the Wealthy elite who are the only ones who can get CC permits in some states). Even if you ban guns all together, the police rush to protect the wealth and the military steps in to power and privilege of ruling elite the world over. The poor can't afford 12 foot high gates, body guards and advanced security system. The best way for the urban poor to protect their family is a firearm, yet because of wrong unprogressive ideas they find the only ones armed in their communities to be the criminal and the cop, neither of which cares very much about them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

yup

are NRA members because we refuse to be victims of Violent Force from any source, individually or as a society.

NRA = NO Victims, holocaust or otherwise.

Semper Fi,

NRA had nothing to do with it, although they would agree with the message. So since the speaker was a Jew, do you stand by your claim of pretended victimhood?

not everything with guns has to do with the NRA

Get yourself some help

Those silly, silly Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto didn't know they weren't supposed to have guns and fight back. They started with less than 10 handguns and held the Nazis off for weeks.

But you're right. No way those disarmed Jews were victims, or should be sensitive to "well meaning" non-Jews wanting them disarmed, right? It's for their own good I bet.

Thanks to a lot of people just like you some would take any firearms they had away again.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

were shot into mass graves, by the Nazis who invaded her country

I can't pretend to speak with any authority here -- but disagreement seems to me part of a long theological tradition in Judaism, so I'd suspect there's no unanimity on a topic like gun control

how she can hold a belief so at odds with her own empirical reality.

That's the sort of belief system we accuse Conservatives of. This honestly baffles me.

on a chat board

It's easy enough to appeal to vague abstractions, such as "empirical reality," but much harder to wade through the history and to discern what an effective response in a particular time and place would have been

And it's easy enough to engage in second-guessing people, many decades later, and from thousands of miles away, without shedding any real light: if only this, if only that ...

to discern what an effective response will be. Limiting options under those circumstances would be unwise.

But the anecdote game is popular in this forum, so let's play. Here's a case:

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/revolt/bielski.html

It's not an "if only," it's a "this happened." Armed Jews saved themselves and others.

Were not privately owned by the Nazi murderers.* They were state property, provided by the state for use. Armies tend to be armed, even those maintained by nations that severely restrict or prohibit firearms ownership by private citizens. Unless she was advocating the disarmament of armed forces, I fail to see the logic of her position.

*An example of an exception would be sidearms purchased by officers. I have read, but not verified, that the majority of commissioned officers in the German armed forces were required to purchase their own sidearm from either a state or commercial source. However, this purchase was state authorized as the officer was a state actor.

Were not privately owned by the Nazi murderers.* They were state property, provided by the state for use. Armies tend to be armed, even those maintained by nations that severely restrict or prohibit firearms ownership by private citizens. Unless she was advocating the disarmament of armed forces, I fail to see the logic of her position.


Private firearm ownership is about much
more than personal defense against muggers/thugs.

Thank you for your post.

Though your source might be a mite confused with 19th-century British officers, who were definitely required to purchase their sidearms out of pocket.

To the best of my understanding, German officers were authorized but not required to purchase their own sidearms. Generals and staff officers frequently preferred smaller, lighter pistols--like the Walther PP, Mauser HSc and Sauer 38H, chambered for 7.65mm (.32 ACP)--to the comparatively bulky standard-issue Walther P38.

in .380

The Mauser HSc, as you correctly mention, and the Walther PP and PPK. For non-German pistols, the same applied to the FN Browning 1910 and 1922, the Beretta M34 and M35 (chambered for .380 and .32, respectively, but otherwise identical), the CZ Vz.24 (.380) and Vz.27 (.32), the Hungarian Frommer M1912 "Stop" and FEMARU 37M... (Note that all these handguns except the Frommer Stop were pressed into service with German military and "security" forces at some juncture.)

I surmise the .32 ACP and .380 ACP generate comparable pressures, readily allowing a pistol designed to fire one to be redesigned to fire the other.

Could be the title of this OP. I am saving the videos to favorites. Such atrocities are documented through out history. Such atrocities are still happening in the world. The 2nd amendment is our only assurance that it will not happen here.

- NEVER AGAIN -

Semper Fi,

"What happened in Nazi Germany could NEVER happen in America." Therefore that is their basis for being in favor of gun control.

I guess they forget what happened BEFORE WWII when the US and Britain denied entrance to many Jews, and they went right back to Europe and eventually the Holocaust.

Tactics change. Equipment changes. People don't.

Dictators and governments have killed, millions of their own, throughout history,it will happen again.

You're "whistling past the graveyard of history" if you think it can't
Happen here.

I just started reading It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis. Published in 1935, set from 1936 onwards, and of course, the book is about how "it" does happen here.

Not only about how liberty can be lost but how it is facilitated by those who claim to "do good". That is why I am armed and I teach my child how to shoot. I would recommend any Jew do the same.