The editorial board of the St. Louis Jewish Light, like many of the voices for “gun control,” wants a “national conversation” about guns. Also like many such voices, they have a very selective view about whom to invite to this “conversation”:
There is no point whatsoever for gun control advocates to engage in discussion with the NRA or its allies at any level. Trying to have a debate with the NRA on this issue is like talking to a brick wall. Doing so makes one frustrated, angry and is ultimately unsuccessful.
As a media organization we don’t usually discourage direct dialogue and efforts at compromise resolution. In this case, however, ostracizing the bully is the only approach that will work; talk show and news program debates are only likely to continue serving as the wrong playing field.
To state that “talk show and news program debates” are the “wrong playing field” sounds very much like an admission that debating gun rights advocates is a losing proposition for gun prohibitionists. That, in turn, sounds very much like an admission that facts and logic are not doing the gun ban lobby any favors. And they’re not even close to finished in demanding that this “conversation” be of a very one-way nature:
There’s only one party at the true negotiating table, and that’s us, the vast swath of American people who know that human lives trump the right to own mechanized devices designed for killing.
Hmm . . . “killing devices” are apparently more acceptable if they’re not “mechanized.” That, of course, is without even getting into the clearly warranted close scrutiny into this claim about a “vast swath of American people.” And we have come nowhere near addressing the more fundamental fact that in a Constitutional republic, unlike the “democracy” the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence prefers to pretend the United States to be, fundamental human rights are not subject to the popularity contest of a mob rule majority vote, in which 51% of the population can vote away the rights of 49%. In a Constitutional republic, even a “vast swath” cannot vote away the fundamental human rights of even a tiny minority.
The authors of the article, by the way, apparently believe their case is strengthened by Adolphus Busch IV’s recent defection from the NRA over such positions as opposition to laws that would send people to prison for 10 years for the “crime” of possessing an 11-round magazine. They make no mention of the alarmingly high mortality rate among Busch’s girlfriends.
The Jewish Light editorial board has a staunch ally in the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. CSGV might be America’s most consistent (and consistently hysterical) advocate for a “government monopoly on force,” although Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) is also enthusiastically on board. This concept, as CSGV freely acknowledges, was perhaps most (in?)famously articulated by early 20th Century sociologist Max Weber, who, as it turns out, was also the father of Article 48, which proved instrumental in bringing Hitler to power. Well he was certainly a fan of the “government monopoly on force” concept:
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 the 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.
Agreeing with Hitler is not a comfortable position for this correspondent, but how does one deny that genocidal tyranny requires a “a government monopoly on force”? Hero of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Marek Edelman would not have disputed that statement:
When you cannot defend freedom through peaceful means, you have to use arms to fight Nazism, dictatorship, chauvinism,” Edelman said in the 2008 interview in his apartment in the central city of Lodz, which was filled with portraits of Jews and of scenes reminiscent of the Holocaust.
The Bielski family, whose “Defiance” saved over 1,200 Jews from the Holocaust, would also not have argued:
“Without a rifle you are nothing, worthless, you are waiting for death, any minute, any second.”
“My father sent my mother a revolver as a gift, which for her was the symbol of what any young girl wants in a marriage, this was for her the means to stay alive, to kill herself or to die fighting.”
The uncompromising pro-armed citizenry stance of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is the only logically defensible–or morally defensible–product of any accurate reading of history.
The St. Louis Jewish Light has some explaining to do.
- Defiance: “Without a rifle you are nothing, worthless, you are waiting for death, any minute, any second.
- Warsaw ghetto hero Edelman dies
- To honor Marek Edelman, help put teeth in ‘never again’
- Praxis Repost: Strippers. “Juden haben waffen!”
- Is it anti-Semitic to say so if gungrabbers really are ‘bagel brained’?
- What would YOU say to ‘No Guns for Jews’?
- How do YOU feel about ‘No guns for Jews’?
- Hear son of ‘Defiance’ hero speak in St. Louis
- CSGV says only the government can protect you from . . . the government
- Living for 170,000,000
- JPFO responds to National Jewish Democratic Council Attack
- ‘Progressive’ icon’s view refutes modern ‘monopoly of violence’ advocates
- Forget ‘gun control’; CSGV represents ‘genocide enablement lobby’
- Nadler parrots falsehoods stumping for gun bans, extols ‘monopoly of violence’
- Hitler’s gun control lie debunked
- Descendant of Holocaust survivors wants us less capable of resisting holocausts