Recently, JPFO received the following email:
Subject: Not YOUR Kind of Gun-Owning Jew!
"First my bona fides. I have owned, enjoyed, and (lawfully)
used firearms for more than 40 years. I am and have been an avid
hunter all my adult life and a former reserve police officer, an
NRA member and JEWISH!
"I have always been disgusted by the Lautenbergs, Schumers,
Feinsteins, Levins, and all the other arrogant and smug Jewish legislators
who have purported to speak for me regarding guns, as well as other
social isues. I feel that Jews have a larger stake than the population
as a whole in maintaining the the right to private gun ownership.
The echo of Nazi boots and the sound of (Christalnocht) breaking
glass should be a reminder of what can happen when the "man
on horseback" runs amok and the citizenry has no means with
which to defend themselves.
"On the other hand, to strongly imply that it's appropriate
for us to vote for presidential candidates SOLEY on their view of
gun control and BATF, I believe is over the top. I've other "strange
beliefs" as well. I believe that banning the manufacture of
clips in excess of 7 rounds for center fire and 10 rounds for rimfire
guns is entirely reasonable. I believe that those who enjoy the
(legitimate ) pastime of taking high capacity mags to the range
and using them to make tin cans jump are a threat to no one but
nevertheless should be willing to sacrifice their fun for "the
greater good". I hold the amazing view that a national gun
owner's license would not only show that we're not the intransigent
yahoos that the antigunners paint us but could work out in our favor.
A federal license, granted to all but those who should not possess
guns by virtue of felony records etc., which would supercede state
law would be the best protection we law abiding gun owners could
have against gradual encroachment on our freedom by authorities.
"It is my further belief that extremist views such as
those espoused by JPFO are in the long run what wil cause us to
ultimately lose this battle.
"As you have a right to your view so too do I."
The author of this email is the perfect kind of Jewish (or any other
kind of) gun owner who thinks that whatever he believes is "reasonable"
is quite enough for everyone on the planet -- and does not understand
that the opposition thinks a total ban is "reasonable".
As a result, in a contest between factions who are arguing about
what is "reasonable," he has no principled position, merely
his personal point of view. His point of view can be easily shouted
down and disregarded, because his point of view is (by itself) worthless.
If gun rights can be traded off against the "greater good,"
then all it takes is 50% +1 of the people to declare that a total
ban is "the greater good," and the writer above a disarmed,
but happy, reasonable, nationally-licensed Jewish former gun owner.
This is the perfect example of why compromise on principles will
result in doom to the principles. A perfect example of how the word
"reasonable" -- which by definition has no fixed definition
-- can become the enemy of G-d given rights.
People often fail to distinguish between "reasonableness"
and "justice." Justice can be given, regardless of whether
somebody applies "reasonableness" to the equation.
A person who murders a child in cold blood deserves the death penalty.
Nowhere in the analysis of the evidence, or the standard of proof,
or the degree of the penalty, is there room for "reasonableness."
That is because the child has a G-d-given right to life. It is black
and white -- you take another person's life without just cause, then
you get justice: the full penalty.
We have come to believe these days that we mustn't impose any penalty
without first being convinced that the penalty is "reasonable"
-- or that some other aspect of the process was "reasonable."
When it comes to the G-d-given right to self-defense, there are questions
that refer to reasonableness, i.e. whether the defender reasonably
was in fear for his life, and whether the defender used reasonable
force under the circumstances.
Nowhere in that analysis is there an examination of the gun to see
whether it was a "reasonable gun" to use for self-defense.
The question is only whether the defender was justified in using deadly
force. The number of rounds in the magazine, or whether the gun has
a scope or a bayonet lug, is irrelevant.
Don't be lulled by arguments of the "reasonable" . Stick
to your principals. Don't compromise.
- The Liberty Crew
PS Don't forget that our new documentary _The Gang_ is now
available for purchase! Go to www.jpfo.org/store.htm
and click on "Order Today". For more "Gang" products
and information, visit www.thegangmovie.com