Posted on 02/05/2011 5:17:41 AM PST by marktwain
The National Council of Jewish Women’s thinly disguised polemic in the article “Reforming gun safety laws a moral imperative” (CJN, Jan. 21) against gun ownership misses an important point. Making yet another rule banning guns will not protect us against violent crime, nor will enforcing a witch hunt against those deemed mentally defective enhance our security.
Without minimizing the pain of Tucson, tragic incidents do not negate the value of armed and trained citizens as a deterrent to crime. Simply put, they make it more risky for criminals. In states with concealed carry laws, violent crime has been steadily decreasing. Had one trained and armed citizen been present in Tucson, the loss of life might have been reduced.
The right of self-defense against violent crime and tyrannical government is meaningless without an effective means. It is fundamental to free people. Relying on government to keep us safe makes about as much sense as wishing on a star. If we truly want to remain free, we must support the right to keep and bear arms.
NCJW and the Progressive Policy Institute are committed to banning guns. The process is simple: 1) Ban “assault weapons” 2) Define whatever you don’t like as an assault weapon 3) Presto – ban huge categories of guns. “Reasonable regulation” has all too often been the first step in disarming citizens who were later murdered by the millions – some in ostensibly civilized countries.
The Second Amendment exists to enable citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals and tyrannical government. Using politically loaded terms like “gun show loopholes” and “assault weapons” ignores the fact that the vast majority of gun dealers and owners are honest. Guns of all types have always been available to criminals on the street. Making it difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves will not reduce crime, and will have not the slightest effect on criminals and violence-prone persons. High-capacity magazines and “assault rifles” are red herring issues – large capacity magazines do not render a firearm unsafe. Expert shooters can change low-capacity magazines faster than the eye can follow.
Keeping guns – or anything else – out of the hands of those the NCJW deems “mentally challenged” isn’t so simple. Who makes that determination, on what facts, and by what due process? Ohio law requires an adjudication of mental incompetence. Not everyone with a psychiatric diagnosis poses a risk of violence. The invasions of privacy that would be required to deprive all persons with a psychiatric diagnosis of the right to own a gun would be enormous – and unacceptable to most Americans.
Misguided attempts at rendering communities “gun-free” have resulted in increased violent crime. The Clinton-era ban was ineffective. In California, a state that retains most of the ban’s provisions, is there any evidence that the overly strict gun laws (including a 10-round magazine limit) have in any measurable way reduced violent crime? Australia’s sweeping destruction of guns has resulted in an escalation of violent crime, in some categories as much as 40%.
Guns themselves are seldom illegal. The fundamental issue is not banning more guns; it is enforcement of our already strict laws against illegal use and transfers.
The Ohio Constitution, like the Bill of Rights, protects a personal right to keep and bear arms. It is not unlimited, as the NCJW claims. Virtually no one may own certain types of prohibited weapons, such as sawed-off shotguns or fully automatic firearms. Firearms are prohibited to certain classes of persons, foremost among them children. Concealed carry of a firearm is prohibited unless the person has passed a thorough criminal background check, taken an extensive course in firearm safety, and has demonstrated competence on a live-fire range under the watchful eye of a trained instructor.
There are a number of places where it is illegal to carry a firearm: school safety zones, religious institutions, bars and restaurants where liquor is served, government buildings, and places where the owner has posted a sign barring entry with guns. Vehicle carry of firearms is regulated by both state and federal law. Convicted criminals and those under a wide range of legal disabilities, including those adjudicated mentally incompetent, are prohibited from possessing firearms.
NCJW’s bad-mouthing the NRA is pure political invective. In addition to fine constitutional and legal advocacy, the NRA has extensive educational programs devoted to firearm safety, including the Eddie Eagle program for children. Refuse To Be a Victim, originally developed for women, is now available to all. NRA members are not rabid survivalists; they include law-abiding citizens of all ages and walks of life with an interest in firearms as an important part of our national heritage. The NRA has consistently supported law enforcement in the prevention and prosecution of firearms-related crimes.
NCJW’s position on the “moral” invalidity of our firearms laws is disingenuous. Imagine what Israel would be like today if its citizens were disarmed as these folks are advocating. Imagine also what might have transpired in Europe if the Jews had been armed and trained, as were the Swiss – the only country in Europe not invaded by the Nazis.
The amicus brief by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership in The Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller documents millions of unnecessary deaths at the hands of governments that first disarmed their populations using what sounded like “reasonable regulation” of firearms. Jews have always had an important stake in self-defense. Making social policy based on an irrational abhorrence of guns makes no sense.
I’m always amazed to see Jews who are so obvlivious to their own tragic history with gun control.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942
And while Hitler certainly did not impose gun control in Germany (there had been numerous gun restrictions on the books there from the previous government), he did enact gun control laws which targeted Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html
I remember when the Shaker Heights subdivision in Cleveland was known as “Hannukah Heights”.
Anyway, here we go again on gun control. Obama’s already turned the clock back forty years on race relations, and he’s doing the same with guns. Schumer and Feinstein are in full roar, and lifestyle interrogations by physicians are back.
“When guns are outlawed, only Muslims will have guns.”
To those who do not know what Castigo Cay is, it is Matt Braken’s new novel, based in the Caribbean. Matt is a talented author who is our own Travis McGee. Matt and I disagree about whether the current surge in gun control promotion by the MSM and others will result in a ban on magazines with capacity over 10 rounds.
The National Council of Jewish Women’s thinly disguised polemic in the article “Reforming gun safety laws 'a moral' imperative”
Listen up 'ladies'. I'll tell YOU what's 'amoral' and immoral- putting me and my family at the mercy of any scumbag who wants to harm us. All because YOU don't like guns. Well here's a clue, ladies'. No one is forcing you to get one.
BTW: 'The Train' leaves in one hour on Track #9. Be on it with one suitcase.
Oh, and don't worry about any 'forwarding address'. You won't need one.
Now how does that sound, 'ladies'? Have you ever heard of something like happening that before? NO? Well -- LOOK IT UP!
[Given a chance, History repeats itself you asshats!]
Hey Lady!
The Bad Guys have guns today and they’ll still have them after they’re “banned”!
The only difference is once YOU are disarmed, the bad guys will know you can’t defend yourself and you WILL be a victim!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.