Replies

NRA Under Fire For 'Nazi' Comparison - http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=8855

How can anybody point to the Holocaust as a reason to oppose sane gun control measures? asked a spokeswoman for StopTheNRA.com, Wendy Katz. "It's not only ridiculous. It's a deep offense to the memories of the six million innocent Jews who were tortured and murdered during the Holocaust. The rationale behind a gun registration system is to help facilitate criminal investigations. Contrary to what the NRA suggests, it is not part of a nefarious, coordinated plot against gun owners modeled after the Nazis' campaign to eliminate the Jews."

Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny
by Aaron Zelman

Click for a large image of The Cover.

This book is a real blockbuster. Produced by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, it contains the German language original of the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, a page-by-page translation, and then a page-by-page comparison with the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968. The similarities are striking. The book also contains an actual copy of the correspondence between the U.S. bill's sponsor, Sen. Thomas Dodd, and the Library of Congress which translated the Nazi law for him. Click here to read more about this book.

How can anybody point to the Holocaust as a reason to oppose sane gun control measures? asked a spokeswoman for StopTheNRA.com, Wendy Katz. "It's not only ridiculous. It's a deep offense to the memories of the six million innocent Jews who were tortured and murdered during the Holocaust...."

My wife's uncle was a "guest" at 4 of Herr Hitler's concentration camps, and witnessed the murder of his father and brother. He is the only survivor of his family. He owns full-auto weapons and always carries a gun with him. Who is Wendy Katz to suggest that this man, who carries such awful memories with him day and night, should be disarmed... or that his living relatives should also be disarmed, so that they may also face the power of the State without an effective defense someday?

It is "deeply offensive" to those Jews who resisted the Nazis - or for that matter the Arabs who have more recently tried to exterminate the Jewish State (and all of its residents) - to state that they'd have been better off without guns. It is simply not true - without guns, they'd be DEAD! And as far as those who did die using guns to defend themselves, at least they died on their feet instead of on their knees, at least they had some self respect, and at least they defended with all of their resources that most precious gift from G-d, life itself.

Wendy Katz and all of the other Ghetto Jews can do as they wish, but this Jew will follow the example of his wife's uncle and only be disarmed when he is dead.

"...The rationale behind a gun registration system is to help facilitate criminal investigations.

I'm sure that this was one of the arguments for registration in Weimar Germany. As the article mentioned, the Nazis didn't invent gun control, but they sure benefitted from the neat and well-organized lists of gun owners throughout Germany (and, later, throughout countries that they occupied). Oh, and BTW, I'm also sure that such a claim is cold comfort to those residents of NYC that registered their long guns pursuant to a 1966 law (at which time they were promised that the information would "never" be used for confiscation), when Mayor David Dinkins ordered the police to round up all "assault weapons" in the early 1990's.

Contrary to what the NRA suggests, it is not part of a nefarious, coordinated plot against gun owners modeled after the Nazis' campaign to eliminate the Jews."

That is a hypothesis that cannot be proven. Given the stakes, I'm not willing to take her assurances (or anyone else's) that it is true.

(SNIP)
To summarize: from the point of view of any aggressor, it is desirable if not essential that intended victims not possess weapons, especially firearms. This principle holds true whether the subject is a gangster premeditating a crime or a government planning a genocide."

Or just a government wishing to avoid an armed attack preventing it from enforcing controls the public does not wish to succumb to.

(SNIP)
As we discuss below, the common law as well as the statutes of every state permit the private use of deadly force when necessary for self-protection. However, it appears to be the considered view of many reputable people that this forbearance is obsolete if not depraved. Furthermore, many gun owners seem to support keeping firearms less as a crime-fighting tool than as a political statement about individual sovereignty and the value of self-rule. It is therefore necessary to elucidate the legal and moral status both of fearful householders and proto-insurrectionists who assert the right to possess firearms.

The primary purpose of every gun owner I know in owning a firearm is to provide security for themselves and their family until the local LEO's can arrive to contend with the attacker/s.

(SNIP)
For example, Betty Friedan has called the trend of women buying guns "a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism."[12] She believes "that lethal violence even in self-defense only engenders more lethal violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety." [13]

Sorry, Friedan, but individual security comes first because court decisions have determined that inadeqate protection by local LEO's is not considered dereliction of duty.

A man attacking my wife with the intention of rape or other equally horrify criminal act will never get his chance to meet with a jury. That pre-determination is made by the criminal not my wife.

(I will continue to review this article later)