JPFO member Chuck Klein has written a rebuttal to Jewish organizations that don't believe Americans should be able to defend themselves. Yes, it is the usual suspects who choose not to learn from history.
Dear Fellow Jews,
Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision acknowledging firearm ownership is an American fundamental right, a paradox has arisen. "A number of major Jewish organizations have condemned the decision, which they believe will simply make America a more violent place. They include:
The American Jewish Committee,
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism,
American Jewish Congress,
National Council of Jewish Women.
The AJ Committee also expressed "disappointment" over the decision, adding: "Gun control protects liberty, rather than restricts it."'
However, another Jewish view prevails - that of the successful side of the case (District of Columbia vs. Heller). Here, Alan Gura, lead attorney, said, "Jews, in particular, should take note. It's puzzling. Many Jews seem to prefer heavy government intervention, and it's not a good thing." Jews, he said, "often have the mistaken belief that the government is a beneficent force to always do good and help people out. Statistics indicate that gun ownership tends to reduce crime and increase public safety. Moreover, self-protection is a fundamental right," he added, "because citizens cannot always depend on the government to protect them from criminals or tyrannical rulers." Washington Jewish Week, 3 July 08
The 5000+ dues-paying members of the civil rights organization, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (www.jpfo.org), in its Amicus Curiae on the subject case raises the obvious questions of how can Jews who share the Holocaust commonality be so at odds over the issue of the rights and powers of self/race preservation? Here are a few comments from this very well written and poignant legal brief:
"the simple truth - born of
experience - is that tyranny thrives
best where government need not fear
the wrath of an armed people.'
"If a few hundred Jewish fighters in
the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the
Wehrmacht for almost a month with
only a handful of weapons, six million
Jews armed with rifles could not so
easily have been herded into cattle
Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 569 (9t~~ Cir. 2003)
(Kozinski, J., dissenting).
"This simple observation by Judge Kozinski encapsulates the core issue that forms the basis and the essential nature of the Second Amendment."
[Beginning in 1928, a series of Pogroms were issued controlling, restricting, and finally, barring Jews from firearms ownership] "A 1936 memorandum of the Bavarian Political Police documents the procedure:
"'In principle, there will be very few
occasions where concerns will not be
raised regarding the issuance of
weapons permits to Jews. As a rule,
we have to assume that firearms in
the hands of the Jews represent a
considerable danger to the German
"History illustrates just how readily reasonable regulation of firearms invites large scale abuse by the state and ultimately paves the way for wholesale confiscation of arms and the mass slaughter of the disarmed. (Footnote: ' Invariably the proponents of "reasonable" firearms regulations . . . invites the type of abuse which has been rampant worldwide within the last century. One need not strain too hard to imagine the type of broad censorship that could be implemented under the guise of "reasonable" regulation of speech or of the press.')" http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/jpfo-amicus-brief.pdf
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled! Those who disagree must, in the American way, accept the decision and plan/act accordingly, e.g., each family, synagogue, law-abiding citizen (not otherwise prohibited from owning weapons) should own, train with and teach the necessity of firearms to their children. And . . . if one is uncomfortable with this, seek knowledge, familiarization and make it a mitzvah - a duty to your children and your people
The Liberty Crew