Rabbi Dovid is at it again on the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership page.
via 2nd Amendment Shooting and Firearms Blog
My idea is that non-Jewish gun-rights advocates are sometimes a little bit wacky when it comes to the theory that personal weapons can prevent a tyrannical government from harming you, but when the Jews get going, look out.
In every major genocide of the last one hundred years (including the Holocaust), the victim group was first officially disarmed. Far too often, "gun control" has historically ended in gun confiscation … followed by the hell of genocide.
The equation is simple: A government-gone-bad cannot disarm the citizenry if it does not know who owns the guns.
This nation (along with the rest of the world) is now entering a destabilized economic situation unmatched by anything since the 1930s. Societal upheaval is a prime breeding ground for intolerance and bigotry. Anger and frustration seek easy targets. What group has historically been on the top of the scapegoat list?
What's your opinion? Is this pure paranoia, or could it be something a bit more contrived? These aren't stupid people, could they be pretending to believe this nonsense in order to justify owning guns, in order to resist any and all gun restrictions? Then, their less gifted brothers take up the chant and pretty soon the whole gun community is talking about resisting government forces with their handguns.From strictly a Jewish point of view, the grotesquely misguided stance of self disarmament among Jews could someday become suicidal for the individual Jew, or G-d forbid, for American Jews as a whole. See: "No Guns For Jews" and "Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny".
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Resistance is possible, even with limited weapons. Remember the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Now imagine what could have been done if the Jews there had been better armed. Yes, in the end, they lost. What many seem to miss is that sometimes, going down fighting is the only noble option.
ReplyDeleteBefore you get twitchy, I'm not saying that we're on the verge of that here. America has too strong a tradition of restraining its government and too strong a gun culture to allow that.
Greg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteResistance is possible, even with limited weapons. Remember the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Now imagine what could have been done if the Jews there had been better armed. Yes, in the end, they lost. What many seem to miss is that sometimes, going down fighting is the only noble option.
SUCCESSFUL opposition requires more parity of weapons. The Afghanis wouldn't have done as well against the soviets if we hadn't provided them the means to do so. The soviets would have fared better against even more equally armed resistance, had they not been hampered by other problems related to their domestic economy and politics back home.
To borrow a turn of phrase from Anonymous, dead is dead. The only justification for the Jews opposing the Nazis was twofold - one, they were foreign invaders, not a lawful representative government; and two, they were facing extermination - they were going to likely end up dead anyway, resistance or no resistance.
GC goes on to say: Before you get twitchy, I'm not saying that we're on the verge of that here.
You're right; there is no reasonable fear of foreign invasion, no military operation that is not going to be stopped by our military force, if such an act is to be stopped at all. Civilian opposition to a military invasion is stupid, and for you to portray it as anything else is glamorizing your gun fantasies.
America has too strong a tradition of restraining its government and too strong a gun culture to allow that.
Bullshit-little-Eva.
We have a system of representative government, not guns, that restrains our government. It has fuck-all to do with guns or gun culture. Any suggestion that gun loons would somehow come riding to the rescue with their huntin' rifles and their concealed carry handguns to stomp out government oppression is no-wrong-bad-stupid. It is also illegal insurrection that the rest of us oppose. So stand down GC, unless you can produce a legal justification for violence against our government (hint - you CAN'T).
Yet another example of your questionable judgment and your badly, badly flawed reasoning.
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that critical thinking you praise teaching your students.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThe Maquis would disagree with you, and would the Afghanis with regard to the Soviets and NATO. In both cases, resistance is possible, and it can be successful. It's ugly when it's necessary, but our ancestors, at least, didn't regard mere life as the most important thing--see Patrick Henry, for example.
If the time ever comes when an armed resistance against our government is appropriate, that government will be a tyranny. Under that situation, the law will be irrelevant, because it will be a tyrant's law.
But given the arguments that you've presented, I take it that you'd just submit. After all, an enforced consensus is a consensus.
I hate to break it to GC but the Warsaw Ghetto, while certainly brave and noble, was an unmitigated disaster for Jews. Nazi reprisals certainly led to many more Jewish victims.
ReplyDeleteAgain, anyone who suggests gun ownership represents a check to our Govt turning tyrannical is delusional. Take Saddam's Iraq, for example. During his tyrannical regime, virtually every household had firearms--even fully-automatic weapons. Yet, this did absolutely nothing to stop Saddam from ruling for almost 4 decades.
IOW, you had a super-tyrannical regime, a rather hollow military, and a populace that armed to the teeth---but gun ownership didn't stop oppression.
I think there are several areas where GC errs:
1. he believes there are many who think as he does. That these folks would all rise up and defend the NRA. In reality, very few believe as he does and still fewer would actually act.
2. gunloons talk a big game WRT tyranny and oppression. Yet, we haven't seen any action whatsoever in the face of condoning torture, warrantless searches and wiretapping, and detaining US citizens indefinitely without charges or representation.
3. pretending a few overweight, white middle-aged males are going to pose a threat to the US military is pretty insulting to our armed services.
Except for one major problem, Most of the Genocides had nothing to do with gun control.
ReplyDeleteCome on, the Warsaw Ghetto--that occurred during World War II. You think there were loads of guns floating about?
Apply the Cold-Dead-Hands Test. If the only way to get someone’s gun is to pry it from their cold, dead hands (literally or figuratively), that’s not gun control. When Grant disarmed the Confederates at Appomattox, that wasn’t gun control; that was taking prisoners. When the Soviets disarmed the remnants of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, that wasn’t gun control either. Mao didn’t come to power in China by tricking the populace into surrendering their arms. He pummeled his well-armed opponents in a stand-up fight. There’s a big difference between unable to fight back, and fighting back but losing.
The list of alleged genocides is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there’s a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it’s that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed — guns or no guns.
All of those genocides started with gun control according to this chart.
ReplyDeletehttp://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
Jadegold,
ReplyDeleteYou missed my point. It is the duty of every person to rise against a tyrannical government. The Iraqis failed to do so, to their own harm. Perhaps you're suggesting that the Jews in Warsaw should have accepted what was being done to them without a fight? Pacifism is intellectually honest, but it's contrary to human nature and quite foolish at the same time.
Laci the Dog,
I'll ask you the same question: Do you see it as better to roll over and submit to oppression? If so, I hope that your homeland is never invaded or taken over by a tyrant. (Of course, Scotland exists under NATO's nuclear shield, so at least the former is unlikely.)
Jadegold,
One more thing: Why does my side keep winning in courts, in elections, and in legislative votes, if we're so small in number?
GC: I see you wish to change the topic away from Red Dawn fantasies.
ReplyDeleteThat's ok.
As to your side winning in the courts and elections--in which country do you reside?
Heller actually reaffirmed the fact that guns can be regulated. As far as elections go, your friends at the NRA spent over $40M of your money to defeat Obama--didn't work. They'll likely spend as much in 2012 with the same results.
Jadegold,
ReplyDeleteI live in the United States of America. The Heller and McDonald decisions declared an individual right to firearms. Congress and the states have been going that direction for a while now and will continue to do so.
By the way, "Red Dawn" is a movie. It's the fantasy of gun grabbers that we gun owners dream of acting it out in real life. Besides which, the television show, "Jericho," was much better written, with better actors.
Greg, It does sound like you live in a fantasy world.
ReplyDeleteBut, I admit you're a good writer and I enjoy your comments very much.
Wolverines!
ReplyDeleteCouldn't resist.
Thanks, Mikeb.
Mikeb302000:
ReplyDeleteWriting is not Greg Camp's problem; thinking logically is his problem.
thinking logically is his problem.
ReplyDeleteNo, thinking--full stop--is his problem.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou've got yourself a new singer in your choir. Does Democommie sing bass or baritone?
There were two Warsaw Uprisings. The first was by the Jews living in the Ghetto. The second was by the Polish Resistance. Both were crushed by the Nazis. Neither uprising resulted in dislodging the Nazis from Warsaw. The Ghetto Uprising of 1943 was an embarassment to the Nazi high command; militarily, it was a nuisance. The Uprising of 1944 was more people, somewhat more arms, same result. During the second uprising the Wehrmacht was in retreat and decided to make a stand in Poland, against the Russians. The Poles were slaghtered by the Nazis while the Russians stood by and took no action.
ReplyDeleteThe Jewish Rebellion was quickly crushed by the SS. And I take the account of it seen in the Pianist to be a fairly accurate depiction of how much of a slaughter it was.
ReplyDeleteWe can add in that there were other Jewish Resistance movements in the Ghettos--Vilnius in particular. But, they were so easily crushed that they are not even a footnote in Holocaust history.
The Bielsky Otriad depicted in Defiance survived because they went into the forest and hid.
Of course, that's not Hollywood, but most of history isn't Hollywood.
Armed resistance by poorly trained civilians ends up in disaster.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteIn your opinion, it's better to submit than to resist? Given the terrible choice offered to the Jews in Warsaw, you'd do what?
The point is, Greg, that the Warsaw thing is not an example of successful resistance. It is an example of the mental illness many of you suffer from. It's called grandiose victimism. It's that going-down-in-a-blaze-of-glory fantasy.
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteLaci the Dog,
In your opinion, it's better to submit than to resist? Given the terrible choice offered to the Jews in Warsaw, you'd do what?
Greg, you should be aware that Laci is very supportive of Jews, including his wife.
I don't think this was a fair thing to say.
Not a fair thing to say? I'm trying to understand the mentality that would say, we're going to die anyway, so we might as well be compliant about it. I have deep respect for the Jewish people, and the Shoah is one of history's outrages.
ReplyDeleteThe standard for action isn't always whether it will succeed, but it is always whether or not it's right to do. That's not to denegrate someone who makes a different choice, since the choices at that time were all bad. I'm just saying that the uprising was a way to go out fighting. And who knows how much sooner the war ended because German soldiers were having to put down a rebellion within their borders, rather than fighting on the front lines.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteThey weren't, y'know, putting down a rebellion within their borders. They were murdering people in Poland, not Germany. The jews were--with or without the weapons they had at hand--not likely to do more than provoke a massive response from the nazis, which is precisely what happened.
The jews did not die in their millions for want of arms. They died in their millions along with gypsies, the mentally ill and congenitally deformed, communists, labor organizers and troublesome clerics because the german people, not just the nazi party, gestapo and SS Totenkopf set up, staffed and ran extermination camps. The german people (and many french, poles, lithuanians, dutch, italian and others in countries that were allied to or conqerured by the Wehrmacht) either stood silent or joined in, enthusiastically, in the carnage.
Nazi gun laws, btw, were legally operant in Germany--nowehere else--;other countries in Europe had their own ways to keep the filthy jewish rats in their place.
This:
"In all, the Germans and their collaborators killed between 160,000 and 180,000 German Jews in the Holocaust, including most of those Jews deported out of Germany."
is from here (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005469).
So, of the over 6,000,000 people (a low estimate) who were systematically murdered by the nazis and their henchmen, about 200,000 were german jews who may or may not have been unlicensed CCW holders.
The jews and others who died in the abbatoirs on nazified europe were not killed because they had no gunz, they were killed because they had money, artworks, homes and other wealth that the nazis desired. Or, they were killed because they were stubbornly proud and vocal. Or they were killed because they were "different" or just, in the eyes of the nazis, sub-human.
IF the people of Germany and those in other countries taken over by the nazis had risen up against them, THEN the nazis would have had their hands full. I have not the slightest doubt that the SS and Gestapo would have been as ruthless and murderous with anyone else as they were with the jews. And you know what, THEY HAD TEH GUNZ!!
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteFine, the rebellion happened behind the lines, within conquered territory.
As for the rest of your comment, just so. If everyone had risen up, the war would have been over. Sadly, that did not happen. It's a lesson to all of us about whether we should allow a government to become too powerful.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteThat's the point, idiot, they didn't rise up. The conquered countries were, in many cases, not very governable outside of the capitals and commercial centers. The people, especially insided Germany iteslf, had family members in the Wehrmacht who might well have refuse orders to fire on them.
The people didn't rise up for at least two reasons. The first was that the nazis demonstrated at every opportunity that resistance would be met with horrendous destruction from their armies. The second was that, well, they weren't the jews, the gypsies, the menally and physically defective, teh GAY, communists, trade union folks, troublesome clerics or the OTHER that went into the gas chambers, furnaces, shallow mass graves or were simply left to die and rot on the ground.
It really seems that you and your BOTIO* pals don't get that what kept the people from rising up was greed, rage, cowardice, complacency and lack of a conscience--not the lack of fucking gunz.
*Brotherhood Of The Inanimate Object
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteActually, I do understand that it was everything that you named, plus a lack of weapons, that led to inaction on the part of many people in Europe. Others did rise, and I'm praising them for doing so. What is your problem with that?
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteNo, you don't understand at all. You and your narrow minded gunzloonz pals think that gunz will set you free. You're wrong; they never have and they never will.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteNever have and never will? Libyans would disagree. For that matter, the Founders of this country would disagree. Yes, it means war, but it can be done. And in my view, resistance and demanding liberty is always superior to submission.
Greg in his fixated way, says, "I'm trying to understand the mentality that would say, we're going to die anyway, so we might as well be compliant about it."
ReplyDeleteNobody's saying that. We're saying two things, or at least I am.
1. Guns would not have stopped the holocaust.
2. You and your fellow gun owners are not "going down," so claiming you have guns to fight off a tyrannical government is just a sick fantasy.
Now consider my response, Mikeb302000,
ReplyDelete1. A population that resisted the Nazi party in Germany would have stopped the Shoah. That could have been done by votes at first and by guns later on. If the German military had been forced to put down an insurrection, it would have had no forces left for conquest.
2. Had the surrounding nations taken a more active military response, there'd have been no Shoah--or at least it would have been limited to Germany. When Hitler militarized the Rhineland, France should have pushed him back out. The French military at the time could have defeated the Germans. Naturally, the British should never have gone along with the Munich deal--peace in our time means war tomorrow, in that context.
3. I've never said that "we're going down," and I doubt that the vast majority of gun owners in America believe anything to the contrary. Besides which, one can consider the possibility of something without having to believe it to be likely and especially without having to believe it to be desirable.
":Never have and never will? Libyans would disagree. For that matter, the Founders of this country would disagree. Yes, it means war, but it can be done. And in my view, resistance and demanding liberty is always superior to submission"
ReplyDeleteThe Libyans, without the "help" of NATO resources would have likely been, if they were still alive, pushed out of the cities, cities bombed and shelled into rubble by Mallomar Quitedaffy's army.
The revolutionaries of 1776 without significant help from the french navy would have suffered many more casualties and might not have prevailed.
" Had the surrounding nations taken a more active military response, there'd have been no Shoah--or at least it would have been limited to Germany."
This buttresses your argument that individuals having gunz would have remained free? In what way?
Had the surrounding nations (or, indeed the germans, themselves) united against the nazis in 1935 or thereabouts, Adolf Hitler's Third Reich might never have come the scourge of europe. But they didn't, for a variety of reasons.
It's interesting that gunzloonz so often paint themselves into a corner and then complain about a lack of manuring room.
democommie may have made a typo, or he may have just made a freudian slip when he wrote:"It's interesting that gunzloonz so often paint themselves into a corner and then complain about a lack of manuring room." LOL.
ReplyDeleteI believe he meant maneuvering room, though. But there is also a certain validity to manuring room... except they seem to have plenty of that, all too often.
Gotta stop now; too hard to type while laughing this much.
Resistance is NOT possible with firearms for civil reform.
ReplyDeleteIF you get military support, either from your own military, or someone else's military, then you no longer are protesting for civil reform.
You are engaging in war; either civil war against your fellow countrymen; or a 'regular' war against a foreign invader.
The Germans were wrong to kill the people they did in the Holocaust. The collaboraters in the various other European countries were equally wrong to cooperate with the Nazi invaders in doing the same damn thing.
I would point out that those Jews and others who correctly identified the threat and LEFT pretty much ALL lived to fight another day, including during the rest of WW II on the side of the allies.
As Shakespeare pointed out, discretion is the better part of valor. Which is Falstaff, Henry IV, if I recall correctly.
Ah, yes; here it is:
"The better part of valor is
discretion, in the which better part I have sav'd my life."
Henry The Fourth, Part 1 Act 5, scene 4, 115–121
The better choice than dying in a fight they couldn't win was to have left, to return to fight when they could win.
You like to define the options to only fight and die, or just die. Those are NOT the only options, and that is a dishonest framing of them - or you don't grasp..you know what.
But you still conflate, improperly, and confuse, war and civil disobedience. They are not the same.
There comes a point when I wonder why I keep telling any of you the same thing over and over. I do understand the difference between civil disobedience and civil war and just plain war. I never said that they're the same, except in the important sense that they are all resistance to an opposing power. But Dog Gone, I suppose that you failed those "Identify the common element" tests in grade school. I'm also well aware of the help that the French gave us and NATO gave the Libyans. That doesn't change my point that armed conflict is sometimes the only solution. Of course, given the option, it's better to have an airforce and artillery on your side. But that's not always available. There are times when the choice is between submission and death.
ReplyDeleteBut Dog Gone, since you're going to quote Shakespeare, have a look at the band of brothers speech in Henry V. Discretion may be the better part of valor (Shakespeare did give good lines to every character), but it's easy to cloak cowardice in the language of discretion.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteAdd this point to my last comment here: Sometimes, people don't want to abandon their homes or other property, just because the neighborhood bully tells them to do so. Sometimes, they want to say, no, this is where I was born. This is mine, and you will take it only at a high price.
It's easier to say that when you're armed.
No, Greg, what you have done is to make my point, that falling back on personal firearms as a solution tends to make that the only solution you consider.
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Discretion may be the better part of valor (Shakespeare did give good lines to every character), but it's easy to cloak cowardice in the language of discretion."
No cowardice in leaving, when those same Poles went on to fight in so many other places in WWII against the Nzais and the axis powers. No cowardice when they returned home to defeat the Germans.
And do you really think that your choice of the St. Crispin's day speech is the correct choice here to support your point? It was made by Henry V to his troops in a war where there were no guns only long bows, and where the English were returning to reclaim their territory from the French at Agincourt, as part of a military force, much like the Poles RETURNING to reclaim their country from the Nazis.
I think that quote backs up MY point rather better than yours.
As to this:
Add this point to my last comment here: Sometimes, people don't want to abandon their homes or other property, just because the neighborhood bully tells them to do so. Sometimes, they want to say, no, this is where I was born. This is mine, and you will take it only at a high price.
Except the Nazis DID take it, and the people who didn't flee that force they couldn't defeat were dead for making the wrong decision, as dead as if they hadn't fought at all.
It was a very brave fight to fight. But it was a stupid fight not to avoid and to return later, given a choice. Leaving WAS the better choice.
It's easier to say that when you're armed.
No, it shouldn't be, unless you are making the point that it is easier to have a false sense of your own capability to withstand a superior force if you have a gun in your hand.
THAT I will agree with, that carrying makes some people stupid about what they reasonably, sanely can and cannot accomplish with that gun.
I was speaking of the rhetoric of Henry's speech, not the military situation, but of course, you choose to dazzle us with everything you know on every subject. I'd suggest that you consider the longbow in a different light, though. It was the rifle of its day, and it tore through the French knights in the same manner that firearms would in later years. Oh, and there were primitive firearms used during the Hundred Years' War, although whether any were at the battle in question, I don't know.
ReplyDeleteTell me this: Why can't you just say that we disagree? You always have to be right on every point. You remind me of the annoying little child who can't stand it when the adults ask her to be quiet.
Greg, the use of the long bow was required for militia type feudal service.
ReplyDeleteIt was not carried as a personal weapon, comparable to modern open or concealed carry.
I know my history, including Agincourt. If it comes to knowledge of medieval armor, weapons, and warfare, or medieval hunting techniques, I'd bet that I've read more, and attended more lectures on the subject, including by the Master of the Royal Armory from 1977 to 1988, noted British medieval armor and weaponry expert, Vesey Norman.
I started reading Shakespeare when I was around 10 years old, and had straight A's in the subject in high school and college.
So, while you may be unchallenged when you teach your students, don't expect to be unchallenged by me.
The St. Crispi(a)n's Day speech is a wonderful bunch of rhetoric glorifying war. It does absolutely nothing to support your position that it is better to die shooting in a futile situation than it is to die some other way.
I made the point, well supported by statistics, that the better decision was to leave when there was no possibility of winning, than it was to engage in a futile shootout. I pointed out how very many patriotic Poles did just that in WW II, and how many others helped them to leave - including Jews. That leaving was NOT only for the wealthy, and that it was a better way of fighting the Nazis and other Axis forces, as part of a military effort.
What do you come back with? That apparently I'm uppity for having a good education,
The Henry the V speech is great rhetoric; it's crappy strategy and tactics. It is abysmal as critical thinking to respond to real life events, as distinct from fictional accounts of battles.
Henry the V - the REAL historic Henry V - would have given his eye teeth for more soldiers, more weapons.
Maybe you need a refresher in the revisionist history found in Shakespeare's writing.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteOf course, you've read every book, and you've even attended a lecture. Why would you, I do have to wonder, since the very idea of violence in any form appears to be repellent to you?
GC wrote:
ReplyDelete"Of course, you've read every book, and you've even attended a lecture. Why would you, I do have to wonder, since the very idea of violence in any form appears to be repellent to you?"
No. I haven't read every book. You just happen to have addressed some subjects in which I am better read than many other people. Medieval armor and weapons happen to be one of those.
So, you're losing the argument and have to resort to snark because you have no sources, no substantive reasoning to offer.
I object to avoidable violence. I object to violence rather than reason.
Greg, you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to militia, resistance, feudal England, and everything eles.
ReplyDeleteYou are a perfect example of why American are pretty much an ignorant lot. In fact, I've found the best educated Americans usually tend to not have been too warped by the American education system. Their inquisitiveness was not destroyed by that system and they have retained the natural curiousity and inquisitiveness.
Greg, I'm not sure what your story is, but you prove that expertise is disliked and not enoucraged in the US.
Resistance does not need to take overt violent action. In fact, the most effective acts of resistance have been non-violent. For example, most of the WWII resistance activity was in the form of helping allied soldiers (and others) escape occupied Europe.
Have you ever heard of MI-9?
Member of my family were significantly involved in that organisation both in a military and non-military capacity.
So, resistance does not need to be military. In fact, it is better to be non-violent as the Tiananmen Square and Solidarność have demonstrated.
Had they been violent, there would not have been the sympathy given to them in the west.
Thus, the Occupation movement has more sympathy Tea Party--even if the latter were not astroturf.
It is far easier to sympathise with those who present their arguments non-violently.
It's easier to sympathize with a non-violent protest if your beliefs or natural inclinations favor that approach.
ReplyDeleteConsider another country that was freed by violence: Ireland. There is a case of a long-running resistance that led eventually to independence. As the line from "Foggy Dew" goes, "the world did gaze in deep amaze at those stouthearted men, but few / who bore the fight that freedom's light might shine through the foggy dew."
Paddy Reilly does a good rendition of that song with the Dubliners that you can find on Youtube.