“If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.” —Exodus 22:2
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference.” —Popular saying, generally attributed to George Washington, that points out the danger of gun-free zones
Walking Out on the Rabbi’s Lecture on “Gun Violence”
Two Jewish congregations had gotten together, on May 18, 2018, for Friday night worship services. It was supposed to have been a special evening with special music. But, earlier that day, there had been a school shooting at Santa Fe High School, not far away from where the service was being held. So, the rabbi leading the service decided to take a shot at lecturing Texas Jews about how “gun violence” needed to be stopped by the government’s stepping in to manage Americans’ gun rights.
My wife and I walked out of the service.
Leaving Totalitarianism for a Free State, to Live Without Fear
My wife and I did not move out of totalitarian California to live in freedom-loving Texas, so we could hear a lecture about why we should give up our right to defend our lives and the lives of our loved ones, as punishment for the deeds of the evil-hearted. Criminal Democrats, who hold a two-thirds majority lock on Sacramento, are doing their damnedest to help their criminal constituents by disarming the law-abiding. It is no secret that criminals vote—often illegally—for Democrats, for they know that only Democrats are either ignorant enough or power-hungry enough to seek to eliminate the one right that allows the people to live without fear: the Second Amendment right to self-defense.
A Jewish Rabbi Goes Down the Rabbit Hole of Promoting Hitleresque Gun Restrictions
My wife and I decided not to subject ourselves to the punishment of listening to a rabbi ignorant of Jewish history as she unknowingly espouses victim-disarmament solutions in line with the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938—the law which authorized Hitler to disarm the Jews. (For more on the Nazi Weapons Act, keep reading.) The moment of truth came when the rabbi began quoting a letter issued by members of 20 Jewish organizations, on March 23, 2018, calling for a “multipronged approach” to stopping gun violence. The letter the rabbi referenced, published under the heading “American Jews Speak Out Against Gun Violence in Open Letter” (http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/american-jews-speak-out-against-gun-violence-in-open-letter/), asserts that “[i]n 2018 alone, there have already been 41 mass shootings and 618 children under the age of 18 have already been killed or injured by a gun.” This is a dubious claim at best. Between January 1, 2018, and March 23, 2018, were there really 41 mass shootings? No context is given to justify the expansive view embedded in this statement. These statistics seem to be more about upsetting people, to spur emotional decision-making, rather than well-reasoned planning. Within the text of the letter is also the false notion that “the proliferation of open and concealed carry options is not the solution,” calling such solutions “dystopian.” The real problem, however, is not having more background-checked and permitted armed defenders of innocent lives on the street; the real problem is the proliferation of gun-free zones in which evil acts of violence generally go unrestrained.
The Rabbi’s Letter of Deadly Ideas Continues
Another part of the rabbi’s letter demands “[m]eaningful legislation to halt or limit access to the most dangerous weapons (including, but not limited to, assault weapons) and high capacity ammunition magazines that serve no other purpose than to inflict maximum carnage.” The term “most dangerous weapons” is problematic here. California already bans high-capacity magazines for firearms, and it just means that criminal home invaders who break this law are being given an unlimited advantage over home owners who are limited, by law, to the use of low-capacity magazines. Whatever the letter’s authors plan to reduce the number of “assault weapons”—a term created by victim disarmers to scare people when discussing rifles—will not help when it comes to home protection; criminals will still have whatever weapons they please; and the law-abiding will simply find themselves effectively disarmed before criminals who carry such weapons. Oath-breaking lawmakers, who do not protect the Constitution, disarm the victims, thereby giving criminals the exclusive ability to possess the most effective weaponry. Then, when these criminals utilize their advantages to commit mass-murder in gun-free zones, the law-abiding are punished again with even more restrictions that only empower the criminals.
Gun Registration Laws Harm Oppressed Minorities
Firearm registration is another issue raised in the letter. Condoleeza Rice, to the surprise of the women on The View recently, spoke out against firearm registration (http://eaglerising.com/57516/victim-disarmament-is-racist/): “I was a little girl growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, in the late ’50s, early ’60s. There was no way that Bull Connor and the Birmingham Police were gonna protect you. And so, when white night-riders would come through our neighborhood, my father and his friends would take their guns and they would go to the head of the neighborhood—there was a little cul-de-sac—and they would fire in the air if anybody came through. I don’t think they actually ever hit anybody, but they protected the neighborhood. And I’m sure if Bull Connor knew where those guns were, he would have rounded them up. And so I don’t favor some things, like gun registration.” The white night riders Rice spoke of were criminal terrorists who seized upon any opportunity to prey upon disarmed blacks and Jews. Many of these Klansmen were law-enforcement officers by day, or law-makers (such as Klansman Larry Byrd, a Democrat US Senator from West Virginia), who would have access to firearm registration records. Firearm registration laws, when violated, make the righteous defenders of minorities into the criminals and only serve to protect the lives and safety of the real criminals.
Waiting Periods Put Victims in Harm’s Way
“Appropriate waiting periods” are also suggested by the letter under discussion. The problem is obvious. In a famous court case, Hartzler v. City of San Jose, the following facts are in evidence: On September 4, 1972, Ruth Bunnell phoned the San Jose Police Department and reported that Mack Bunnell, her ex-husband, had called, saying that he was about to pay her a visit, in order to kill her. She requested police help, but the police refused to come, asking that she call back when Mack Bunnell arrived at her residence. Forty-minutes later, Bunnell was murdered. Ms. Bunnell’s family sued the police, only to hear a judge declare from the bench that the police have no duty to protect individual citizens. They work for the city and, therefore, enjoy “discretionary immunity,” according to the judge’s ruling (https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/46/6.html).
If the Police Have No Duty to Protect You, What Recourse Do You Have?
So, if the police have no legal duty to protect you, what is your remedy? In America, you are supposed to have an uninfringed Constitutional right to defend innocent life from criminal assault. But, if it is late at night, you have no gun in the home, and there is no gun shop open, then you might call on a friend for help. If you live in Texas, or another free state, your friend might lend you a gun; although this would be illegal in California, since your friend’s gun is not registered to you, meaning your use of it could get you sued by any California-protected criminal you shoot, making you into the bad guy and putting the criminal in the right, legally speaking. In Texas, friends are allowed to help friends save their lives by the loan of a gun, but California is not the Friendship State that Texas is, when it comes to protecting innocent lives over criminal ones.
If you cannot legally borrow a gun, maybe you can stay with a friend for the night—if you have a friend who is willing to let you come over and stay, that is. Then you can buy your own gun for self-defense purposes the next day, right? Well, in Texas and other anti-crime states you can. But in California you have to wait ten days before you are allowed to take a purchased gun home and protect yourself with it—a rule that gives stalkers and potential murderers the advantage over law-abiding citizens. The waiting period means that, in order to be safe, you will have to stay with friends or in hotels for ten nights. But most people cannot afford to impose on their friends, or to self-impose the cost of a hotel, for ten nights running. So, most people in the selfsame situation as Ruth Bunnell have, over the years, done what Ruth Bunnell did; they called 9-1-1 and died!
Are Guns Violent, or Are People Violent?
I believe a few words about so-called “gun violence” are called for. First off, I think “people violence” is more accurate; it is people who commit horrific crimes, not guns. A gun is just a tool. And the truth is that guns save lives. This is even true of criminal perpetrators, who, during the course of committing a crime, intend their gun use to protect their lives. (Mass murderers are a special case and come in two main varieties: mentally-ill predators with revenge and attentional issues, and government oppressors—such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.—who have power-abuse issues.) Cars kill more people by far than firearms, so do we have “car violence” issues? Does this mean we need “car control” to save lives from criminal murderers or Muslim jihadists who use vehicular homicide as their means of committing murder? If you count all motor-vehicle deaths—accidental as well as intentional—about 40,000 people will die in the US alone in 2018 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year) due to “car violence.” By comparison, there will be about 34,000 gun deaths, but 22,000 to 23,000 of those deaths will be suicides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), leaving between 11,000 and 12,000 to die from non-suicidal causes. Gun deaths by accidental discharge will be about 1.5%, between 165 and 180 deaths, in a country of 320 million. It may also be interesting to note that, in states with fewer gun owners per capita, those who would commit suicide are not dissuaded by lower firearms-availability but only change the means they use to kill themselves.
Banning Gun-free Zones
Perhaps the solution to all of this so-called “gun violence” is to ban gun-free zones, rather than the guns themselves. In March of 1982, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, unanimously passed a municipal ordinance requiring each householder to own and maintain a firearm. As a result, not a single resident of Kennesaw has been involved in a fatal shooting, either as a victim, an assailant, or a defender. According to World News Daily (http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/), the crime rate plummeted after passage of the new law, while the population of the town exploded—eventually growing from a town of 5,000 to one of over 25,000 citizens. Criticized by the anti-Second Amendment forces of the day, when the legislation was enacted, the town stood firm. Kennesaw had chosen to send a powerful message to any and all predators that people’s lives would be defended in Kennesaw. As a result, their citizens live freer than citizens of most municipalities—freer from violence and crime that many other townships endure.
The Nazi Weapons Act of 1938
So, let us now take up the subject of the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938. Tom Brokaw’s “Greatest Generation” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Generation) fought a great war against Hitler and the Nazis, in order to keep America free from the kind of government oppression that Jews, and others, had to endure under Hitler’s National Socialism.
Although this Greatest Generation—among them many Jewish Americans—saved the world from tyranny and liberated Jews from concentration camps, there were some Jews in the German Jewish community, prior to the war, who actually facilitated Hitler’s regime and, thereby, the Holocaust as well. Such Jews as Max Naumann, who formed the Association of German National Jews (Der Verband nationaldeutscher Juden) during the early years of the Third Reich, and Hans Joachim Schoeps, who started the pro-Nazi German Jewish group called the German Vanguard (Der deutsche Vortrupp) were important Jewish voices in support of Hitler and the Nazis (http://eaglerising.com/21256/american-jews-are-making-the-same-mistakes-nazi-jews-made-80-years-ago-and-they-may-again-pay-the-price/). This worth bringing up, in order to point out that Jews can fall for propaganda, just like other groups, especially if believing the truth might force the need for uncomfortable actions. I believe that this is what is happening in America today. Many Jews simply believe the anti-Second Amendment propaganda, without thinking critically for themselves. Although the members of the Association of German National Jews were considered quite brilliant, the truth is that highly-educated people can often prove more gullible than less-educated people who rely on common sense and a moral compass to understand the world and make decisions. People like Naumann and Schoeps, having been educated out of their common sense, often remain in denial until it is too late. Schoeps eventually had to flee to Sweden, while Naumann was arrested by the Gestapo and sent to a concentration camp.
Hitler Disarmed His Enemies before Rounding Them Up
This disarming of Jews, Gypsies, and Gays in Germany—along with the ensuing Holocaust—happened not because Germans were less intelligent than Americans. The major difference between any two places is not the people in them, but the systems under which those people live. Once individual rights are abolished in favor of a collective power, freedom ceases to exist. In Nazi Germany, this was achieved by passage of the Enabling Act of 1933 (http://totallyhistory.com/enabling-act-of-1933/), an amendment to the German constitution that allowed Adolf Hitler to begin his historic transformation from a constitutionally-limited chancellor to a constitutionally-enabled dictator. The Act was signed into law on March 23, 1933, following the Reichstag’s Fire Decree, and it permitted Hitler to implement new laws by executive order. Five years later, the Nazi Weapons Act became law, and, within days of Kristallnacht (the Night of Broken Glass), the Nazi regime enacted special “regulations against Jews’ possession of weapons” (https://www.infowars.com/yes-hitler-really-did-take-the-guns-before-throwing-jews-into-concentration-camps-or-gas-chambers/). So, here is a question, courtesy of Daniel Payne, at The Federalist (http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/12/ben-carson-is-right-about-nazi-gun-control/), for all those who disparage the right to self-defense: If you were a Jew living in Nazi-occupied Europe, and someone offered you a gun for protection, would you turn it down?
The Insidious Role of Nazi Weapons Classification
The Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (http://eaglerising.com/11248/liberals-copied-nazi-weapons-law/) classified weapons, so the government could decide what types of weaponry gun owners could own. For example, Hitler classified some guns as acceptable “hunting weapons,” an idea which later found its way into America’s Gun Control Act of 1968, as “sporting purposes.” But the GCA ’68 does not define what guns fit that category, granting enormous power to unelected bureaucrats to make those determinations.
The Nazi law forced gun owners to register their weapons—ensuring that the most powerful criminals of all time would know exactly where to go to seize those weapons. Nobody on Hitler’s enemies list was spared gun confiscation. German Jews were certainly not spared, yet clueless American Jews—even including rabbis, on occasion—wish to create a Nazi-style police state in the same place where they now live free of such statist oppression. Victim-disarmament—even if many prefer to call it “gun control—is truly the fruit of a poisoned tree.
How Can Government Be Subservient to the People, if Only the Government May Keep & Bear Arms?
Giving the government rights that the people do not have is a bad idea which has always resulted in great evil everywhere this idea has taken root. American politicians are just people, no better or worse than German politicians; given the same powers the Nazis had, they will create the same evil here that the National Socialists created in Germany. It is ironic that many people who have protested police violence in their communities have now taken to the notion that only the police should have guns! This is the recipe for the creation of a deadly tyrannical state in America, similar to the governments run by Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc.—totalitarian monsters who, together, are responsible for the murders of over 100 million people! Once a government disarms its people, all the people’s rights begin to disappear. England, having surrendered its gun rights in 1997, is now on its way to becoming a tyranny that will eventually result in the deaths of many of its own people, with the state now threatening people with imprisonment merely for criticizing the police on Facebook (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5715727/Police-threaten-ARREST-Facebook-users-mocked-post-tiny-cannabis.html). John Basil Barnhill once said, “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.” No truer words were ever spoken.
The Right That Protects All Others
It was victim disarmament, not taxation, that eventually sparked the Revolutionary War (http://eaglerising.com/56629/uninfringed-why-an-unrestricted-second-amendment-is-necessary-for-the-maintenance-of-americas-first-freedom/). That conflict began due to General Gage’s attempted confiscation of guns and gun-powder. In contrast to colonial Americans, however, in 1997, modern-day Britons gave up the gun rights they had enjoyed previously. The Americans kept their guns, and the British handed over theirs. Thus, Americans still have their natural rights, whereas the British are losing theirs. It was the actor and patriot Charlton Heston, as leader of the National Rifle Association (http://eaglerising.com/56627/civilizations-thin-veneer-charlton-hestons-famous-1997-pro-second-amendment-speech-at-the-national-press-club-was-prescient-then-now/), who once said, “[T]he Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America’s First Freedom, the one right that protects all the others. . . . It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows ‘rights’ to exist at all.”
Gun-Free Zones Are Soft Targets
Did Santa Fe High School encourage the notion that it was a gun-free zone? Perhaps the shooter felt secure in coming to the school to open fire, because the weapons policy at the school, according to AWR Hawkins (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/18/santa-fe-high-school-student-handbook-firearms-prohibited/), “makes clear that no firearms, imitation firearms, BB guns, or ammunition is allowed on campus.” In other words, the school was advertising itself to would-be predators as a soft target.
Places where many people are armed tend to be left alone by active shooters: police stations, gun shows, firing ranges, etc. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center (https://crimeresearch.org/2018/02/with-39-killed-in-tunisia-attack-the-top-three-mass-public-shootings-are-outside-the-united-states/), which the Department of Justice often quotes as a source, “Africa, Australia, Israel, and the Philippines all have much higher per capita death rates from these large mass public shooters than the US.” It is also true that “Europe’s rate for all countries whose borders are within Europe is 20% higher than the US’s. . . .” In fact, the US, while having the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, ranks 103rd in homicides worldwide (http://americangunfacts.com/). None of these facts are stated in that open letter on “gun violence” that was so energetically endorsed by the rabbi who politicized the tragic deaths of children to promote an ill-informed agenda.
Also, the authors of that letter fail to mention that the theater attacked in Aurora, Colorado, was a gun-free zone, unlike the other nearby theaters that were available for the shooter to attack. (The Aurora attack is mentioned specifically in the letter.) As John Lott writes (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater.html), with regard to possible theater targets for the Batman Shooter that night, “At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater [which came under attack] wasn’t the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away. There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the ‘home of Colorado’s largest auditorium.’ . . . The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.”
Love Is an Action Verb
Being a Constitutional conservative who knows firearm ownership is Constitutional—not criminal—I see it as my duty to love my spouse and family members by defending their lives with a firearm, for only a gun protects against armed home invaders. What will you do, Rabbi? What do you consider loving? Will you pick up a defensive gun? Or will you plead with predators to spare the lives of your children?
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com