My e-mail to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

As a Ben Noach, I was happy to come upon a conservative Jewish site that opposes gun control. However, I have been troubled by the extreme "libertarian" prejudice and viewpoint from which your anti-gun contro argument seems to be made.

Libertarianism, like liberalism, is ultimately inimical to Torah. In the Torah worldview G-d created and rules the world and we are bound by His laws. Libertarianism (at least the "rightwing" variety) is the product of 17th-18th Century European enlightenment thinking and was historically a precursor of liberalism, however much its offspring may have come to differ from it. Right Libertarians often cite such men as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine as their heroes. With all due respect to these men's contributions to American history, they were enlightenment deists whose religious views were notorious in their own time. Jefferson is a particularly poor hero for Jews as his deracinated, anti-supernatural, rationalist humanist-ethicist religious beliefs were anti-Jewish in the extreme (please see http://christianparty.net/tjchristian.htm). In fact, the entire leadership of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers was dominated by unorthodox religious figures, not orthodox chr*stians.

I can understand the appeal of the Jeffersonians of the early federal period to libertarians who insist that our government has betrayed the Revolution. But was not this identical charge made by Jefferson and his fellows at the very beginning of our Constitutional system, during the Federalist administrations of George Washington and John Adams? Jefferson and Madison supported the G-dless French Revolution and attacked Washington and Adams for betraying the republican cause because they did not support Jacobin France in its war with Great Britain. And they regularly accused Washington, Hamilton, and Adams of reinstituting the exact form of government which they had spent eight years of blood and toil overthrowing. So the charge that the American Revolution has been betrayed is hardly a new one. Perhaps you share the Jeffersonian/Madisonian opinion of the Federalist administrations? Perhaps you think the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed to protect America from subversion by Jacobin agents, was un-Constitutional?

I realize I open myself up to charges of "un-Americanism" by criticizing some of the great figures of American history, but I hope you will grant that I have at least as much right to question the inviolability of the reputations of Jefferson and Madison as libertarians do of Abraham Lincoln.

Despite the very real gulf that existed between the purely political Revolution in America and the social one in France, the unpleasant fact remains that the friends of France's social revolution were not found among the advocates of "big government" and the "betrayers" of the Revolution, but amongst those who held that "that government is best which governs least."

Almost as an aside, I note here that Right Libertarians seem to spend no time whatsoever criticizing fellow rightwingers who are anything but libertarian: Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips, or the American Falangist Party (which does exist). The "libertarianism" of the Right seems to be very arbitrarily applied.

The gravest ideological error of your organization is its dedication to the "Bill of Rights," as though the "right" to bear arms is utterly dependent on a human document ratified in 1791. But over and above this, the so-called "Bill of Rights" was in fact a tragedy of monumental proportions which forever transformed our Constitution from the mere rules of the central government into a philosophical statement about man--which our Constitution has been construed as since that time. Many Founders, such as Alexander Hamilton, were opposed to such a "Bill of Rights" (though as a loose constructionist, hiw reasoning--that the Constitution did not explicitly allow the violating of any rights anyway--was specious). But look at the facts. The original purpose of the "Bill of Rights" was, as every good libertarian knows, to merely limit the reach of the Federal Government. It neither granted nor guaranteed rights to anyone. In fact, its biggest supporters were slaveholders who were not concerned about human rights but that the Federal Government might interfere in their affairs. However, since that time the "Bill of Rights" has been construed not as the originally purely negative document it was at the beginning, but as a positive granting and guarantee of rights by the Federal Government. It is this interpretation of the Bill of Rights that has given federal courts jurisdiction to judge the "constitutionality" of every act by every State, county, town, and local school board. To guarantee the rights "guaranteed" by the "Constitution" federal courts now rule on prayers before high school football games in areas where every citizen is of the same religion. Imagine . . . if the Constitution had been preserved as he original seven articles alone, that is, as the rules of the Federal Government, this nightmare situation would never have existed. Nor would the continual passage of more amendments expanding on the "rights" "granted" by the Constitution--each one constraining States and localities not to do certain things. In a Constitution that had remained as it was originally intended to be, the whole question of the "constitutionality" of every act by every private citizen would be non-existent.

This new interpretation of the Bill of Rights is conventionally blamed by Right libertarians on the Fourteenth Amendment, but this is simplistic. That Amendment 14 accelerated the process in undeniable, but it did not cause it. The very fact that an enumeration of rights exists in the Constitution would have led to those rights being eventually interpreted as authorizations for positive federal power to "guarantee" them.

It must also be noted that Right libertarians are not without their hypocrisy on the Bill. The same people who point out that the Bill of Rights constrains only Congress not to violate rights of free speech, assembly, press, etc., often claim that the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments from their inception prohibited STATE or LOCAL laws from regulating these matters. I'm sorry. The Bill of Rights ORIGINALLY applied only to the Federal Government and had no authority over the States at all, and that includes the sections championed by Right libertarians. Not to acknowledge this opens the whole anti-gun control movement to charges of hypocrisy and to ridicule.

Libertarianism is a man-centered, humanistic philosophy inconsistent with the G-d centered worldview of the Holy Torah.

What then is the case against gun control? It isn't the radical atomistic individualism of the 18th Century enlightenment, that's for certain! As I understand it, the responsibility to defend oneself and the innocent is an obligation of the Torah as elucidated by the religious sources. This being the case, the assertion of arms as a "right," a la 18th Century liberalism, is unnecessary. There are also other things about the liberal position that are hypocritical, illogical or downright fishy and which should be pointed out. For example, why is the "right" to bear arms the ONLY "individual right" to which otherwise individualistic liberals are opposed? Or why does it oppose SYMBOLS of American power while denying the means of actually challenging that power? Or why does the Left, which specializes in anti-Americanism worldwide, and which advocates armed revolution everywhere else, apparently consider the United States government alone to be sacrosanct? (And if the support of anti-American rhetoric coupled with the sanctity of the actual US Goverment is proof that the US Government is in secret control of the Left, please do not claim that this situation suddenly exploded ex nihilo in 1933 . . . or 1913 . . . or 1861.)

At any rate, opposition to gun control should be based on G-d's Commandments and not on a G-dless 18th Century philosophy of humanism; and the United States Constitution should have been left as the rule book for the internal workings of the federal government and not converted into a philosophical tract which would have eventually converted an enumeration of rights into authorization for its power to "guarantee" those rights, regardless of how negative the text was meant to be interpreted at first or whether or not the Fourteenth Amerndment had been added.

Torah and conservatism are perfectly compatible. Torah and libertarianism are NOT. In Torah G-d is sovereign. In liberalism the state is sovereign. In libertarianism the autonomous individual is sovereign. The first absolutely rules out the latter two.

Great post.

You're right! I flubbed up the URL again!

Here t'is:

http://redneck_rastafarian.tripod.com/

I typed it in as "rastafarianism." That's the second time I've done that! Sorry.

"In libertarianism the autonomous individual is sovereign."

Ahhh. Another person who has absolutely no clue about libertarian principles chimes in.

Oh well, ignorance of the facts never stood in the way of a good screed.

Great post.

Thanks.

I wish I had remembered to point out that Patrick Henry, who was the number one opponent of the new Constitution as a centralized government, ended his life as a Washingtonian Federalist. His last public act was to argue against the assertion of Jefferson and Madison (in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions) that States had a right to nullify Congressional acts which they considered unconstitutional. And the acts in question were the Alien and Sedition Acts!

It was an e-mail sent to someone. I posted it here only as a second thought.

Don't agree with the message? That's perfectly fine. There are a lot of messages I don't agree with either, which is why I occasionally post my own thoughts. You are free to do the same.

Don't agree with the message?

After searching and searching, I couldn't find the message.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings. The fact that you posted your screed here on FR indicated to me you were looking for feedback.

I guess I was wrong.

Hitler was anti-Jewish in the extreme.

Jefferson was a defender of faiths on the principle that his countrymen found comfort from them, and for the union, he would not favor one over the other nor have the federal government impose one as the Official Church of the State, while himself a believer in a relationship between man and God without interlocutors ... contemplating his fate more later in life than earlier.

The original purpose of the "Bill of Rights" was, as every good libertarian knows, to merely limit the reach of the Federal Government. It neither granted nor guaranteed rights to anyone.

- 'Grant' rights? Of course it can't.
- But the constitution does guarantee that individual rights - [enumerated or not], were not to be violated under our "republican form of government" [Art.IV], by state [Art.VI] OR federal governments.

However, since that time the "Bill of Rights" has been construed not as the originally purely negative document it was at the beginning, but as a positive granting and guarantee of rights by the Federal Government.

Not so construed by libertarians.
You are confusing the Constitution, - 'the supreme Law of the Land' with the government, which must obey it, and supposedly, - is bound to enforce it.
-- This convenient confusion of yours only serves to attempt to tar those who support the document as being akin to those who support the federal government. - Its a silly tactic.

Imagine . . . if the Constitution had been preserved as he original seven articles alone, that is, as the rules of the Federal Government, this nightmare situation would never have existed.

-- Sure -in a pigs eye-.
-- Under you interpretation we would have an even bigger nightmare where states could violate individual rights on the whim of majority rule - [just as Ca is doing NOW with the RKBA's], -- but completely unbridled by ANY constitutional restrictions.

In a Constitution that had remained as it was originally intended to be, the whole question of the "constitutionality" of every act by every private citizen would be non-existent.

You are ignoring the original 'privileges & immunities' entitled to the citizens of ALL states. [Art.IV, Sec.2]

And actually, it is amusing, in a way, -- you seem to be guestioning above that the rights & acts of citizens have 'non-existent' constitutional protections. -- Why would you argue against protecting your own rights?

You know, as one Jew to another, I will say, you should have been a Rabbi. A discussion between you and Rabbi Mermelstein would make fascinating entertainment.

However... since I'm only half-Jewish, and the other half has its roots in the Confederacy, I have an admirable (or deplorable, from a "civilized" viewpoint (all bow...)) to eschew debate in favor of gunfire. And... JPFO, and their tactics and their attitude, is about the only artifact of American society in this age, which prevents the latter half of me from disowning the former half for its heritage among Jews in America, of leftist subversion of our rights.

Therefore, in defense of myself against a schism of allegiances, I refuse to criticize JPFO for *anything* (and that reminds me, I need to buy a life membership...)

What specifically do you find wrong with JPFO? I'm sure it is in the thread somewhere, I just am having a hard time pinning it down. They seek to preserve and protect rights which are daily under attack by those without an understanding of rights, where those rights come from, and how it all relates to me, the Constitution/Bill of Rights, and other founding documents. I much prefer how JPFO operates than I do another more well know gun rights organization. Which is why my membership and support is in JPFO and not the other.

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.