JPFO logo


America's Most Aggressive Defender
of Firearms Ownership

We recommend having
scripting enabled for
full functionality


May 30, 2007

"Not YOUR Kind of Gun-Owning Jew"

Read Reader Responses to this Article

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."

JPFO's response:

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 and click on "Order Today". For more "Gang" products and information, visit .

Home  |  Commentary  |  Campaigns  |  Network  |  Books, Videos, Apparel  |  About JPFO  |  Privacy

Mirror Site:

All Rights Reserved 2011 JPFO

P.O. Box 270143 | Hartford, WI 53027
Phone (800) 869-1884 | Fax (425) 451-3959 |