JPFO on compromising with gungrabbers.
ADD: I guess I should mention to read all the way through to JPFO's response to this fella's email.
Stole this from another forum:
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
May 30, 2007
JPFO ALERT: "Not YOUR Kind of Gun-Owning Jew"
Recently, JPFO received the following email:
~~~
Subject: Not YOUR Kind of Gun-Owning Jew!
"First my bona fides. I have owned, enjoyed, and (lawfully)
used firearms for more than 40 years. I am and have been an
avid hunter all my adult life and a former reserve police
officer, an NRA member and JEWISH!
"I have always been disgusted by the Lautenbergs, Schumers,
Feinsteins, Levins, and all the other arrogant and smug
Jewish legislators who have purported to speak for me
regarding guns, as well as other social isues. I feel that
Jews have a larger stake than the population as a whole in
maintaining the the right to private gun ownership. The
echo of Nazi boots and the sound of (Christalnocht)
breaking glass should be a reminder of what can happen when
the "man on horseback" runs amok and the citizenry has no
means with which to defend themselves.
"On the other hand, to strongly imply that it's appropriate
for us to vote for presidential candidates SOLEY on their
view of gun control and BATF, I believe is over the top.
I've other "strange beliefs" as well. I believe that
banning the manufacture of clips in excess of 7 rounds for
center fire and 10 rounds for rimfire guns is entirely
reasonable. I believe that those who enjoy the (legitimate
) pastime of taking high capacity mags to the range and
using them to make tin cans jump are a threat to no one but
nevertheless should be willing to sacrifice their fun for
"the greater good". I hold the amazing view that a national
gun owner's license would not only show that we're not the
intransigent yahoos that the antigunners paint us but could
work out in our favor. A federal license, granted to all
but those who should not possess guns by virtue of felony
records etc., which would supercede state law would be the
best protection we law abiding gun owners could have
against gradual encroachment on our freedom by authorities.
"It is my further belief that extremist views such as those
espoused by JPFO are in the long run what wil cause us to
ultimately lose this battle.
"As you have a right to your view so too do I."
~~~
JPFO's response:
The author of this email is the perfect kind of Jewish (or
any other kind of) gun owner who thinks that whatever he
believes is "reasonable" is quite enough for everyone on
the planet -- and does not understand that the opposition
thinks a total ban is "reasonable".
As a result, in a contest between factions who are arguing
about what is "reasonable," he has no principled position,
merely his personal point of view. His point of view can be
easily shouted down and disregarded, because his point of
view is (by itself) worthless.
If gun rights can be traded off against the "greater good,"
then all it takes is 50% +1 of the people to declare that a
total ban is "the greater good," and the writer above a
disarmed, but happy, reasonable, nationally-licensed Jewish
former gun owner.
This is the perfect example of why compromise on principles
will result in doom to the principles. A perfect example of
how the word "reasonable" -- which by definition has no
fixed definition -- can become the enemy of G-d given
rights.
People often fail to distinguish between "reasonableness"
and "justice." Justice can be given, regardless of whether
somebody applies "reasonableness" to the equation.
A person who murders a child in cold blood deserves the
death penalty. Nowhere in the analysis of the evidence, or
the standard of proof, or the degree of the penalty, is
there room for "reasonableness." That is because the child
has a G-d-given right to life. It is black and white -- you
take another person's life without just cause, then you get
justice: the full penalty.
We have come to believe these days that we mustn't impose
any penalty without first being convinced that the penalty
is "reasonable" -- or that some other aspect of the process
was "reasonable."
When it comes to the G-d-given right to self-defense, there
are questions that refer to reasonableness, i.e. whether
the defender reasonably was in fear for his life, and
whether the defender used reasonable force under the
circumstances.
Nowhere in that analysis is there an examination of the gun
to see whether it was a "reasonable gun" to use for self-
defense. The question is only whether the defender was
justified in using deadly force. The number of rounds in
the magazine, or whether the gun has a scope or a bayonet
lug, is irrelevant.
Don't be lulled by arguments of the "reasonable" . Stick to
your principals. Don't compromise.
- The Liberty Crew
Stole this from another forum:
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
May 30, 2007
JPFO ALERT: "Not YOUR Kind of Gun-Owning Jew"
Recently, JPFO received the following email:
~~~
Subject: Not YOUR Kind of Gun-Owning Jew!
"First my bona fides. I have owned, enjoyed, and (lawfully)
used firearms for more than 40 years. I am and have been an
avid hunter all my adult life and a former reserve police
officer, an NRA member and JEWISH!
"I have always been disgusted by the Lautenbergs, Schumers,
Feinsteins, Levins, and all the other arrogant and smug
Jewish legislators who have purported to speak for me
regarding guns, as well as other social isues. I feel that
Jews have a larger stake than the population as a whole in
maintaining the the right to private gun ownership. The
echo of Nazi boots and the sound of (Christalnocht)
breaking glass should be a reminder of what can happen when
the "man on horseback" runs amok and the citizenry has no
means with which to defend themselves.
"On the other hand, to strongly imply that it's appropriate
for us to vote for presidential candidates SOLEY on their
view of gun control and BATF, I believe is over the top.
I've other "strange beliefs" as well. I believe that
banning the manufacture of clips in excess of 7 rounds for
center fire and 10 rounds for rimfire guns is entirely
reasonable. I believe that those who enjoy the (legitimate
) pastime of taking high capacity mags to the range and
using them to make tin cans jump are a threat to no one but
nevertheless should be willing to sacrifice their fun for
"the greater good". I hold the amazing view that a national
gun owner's license would not only show that we're not the
intransigent yahoos that the antigunners paint us but could
work out in our favor. A federal license, granted to all
but those who should not possess guns by virtue of felony
records etc., which would supercede state law would be the
best protection we law abiding gun owners could have
against gradual encroachment on our freedom by authorities.
"It is my further belief that extremist views such as those
espoused by JPFO are in the long run what wil cause us to
ultimately lose this battle.
"As you have a right to your view so too do I."
~~~
JPFO's response:
The author of this email is the perfect kind of Jewish (or
any other kind of) gun owner who thinks that whatever he
believes is "reasonable" is quite enough for everyone on
the planet -- and does not understand that the opposition
thinks a total ban is "reasonable".
As a result, in a contest between factions who are arguing
about what is "reasonable," he has no principled position,
merely his personal point of view. His point of view can be
easily shouted down and disregarded, because his point of
view is (by itself) worthless.
If gun rights can be traded off against the "greater good,"
then all it takes is 50% +1 of the people to declare that a
total ban is "the greater good," and the writer above a
disarmed, but happy, reasonable, nationally-licensed Jewish
former gun owner.
This is the perfect example of why compromise on principles
will result in doom to the principles. A perfect example of
how the word "reasonable" -- which by definition has no
fixed definition -- can become the enemy of G-d given
rights.
People often fail to distinguish between "reasonableness"
and "justice." Justice can be given, regardless of whether
somebody applies "reasonableness" to the equation.
A person who murders a child in cold blood deserves the
death penalty. Nowhere in the analysis of the evidence, or
the standard of proof, or the degree of the penalty, is
there room for "reasonableness." That is because the child
has a G-d-given right to life. It is black and white -- you
take another person's life without just cause, then you get
justice: the full penalty.
We have come to believe these days that we mustn't impose
any penalty without first being convinced that the penalty
is "reasonable" -- or that some other aspect of the process
was "reasonable."
When it comes to the G-d-given right to self-defense, there
are questions that refer to reasonableness, i.e. whether
the defender reasonably was in fear for his life, and
whether the defender used reasonable force under the
circumstances.
Nowhere in that analysis is there an examination of the gun
to see whether it was a "reasonable gun" to use for self-
defense. The question is only whether the defender was
justified in using deadly force. The number of rounds in
the magazine, or whether the gun has a scope or a bayonet
lug, is irrelevant.
Don't be lulled by arguments of the "reasonable" . Stick to
your principals. Don't compromise.
- The Liberty Crew
0
-
Reasonable infringements are infringements. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Reasonable infringements are infringements.
Yes, that would be a good way to resume of JPFO's response.0 -
I think I'm going to join the JPFO. 0 -
Everytime I hear/read a particular person or gun rights groups condeming "compromise" I wonder exactly where the he!! they have been for the past 30 years as the anti-gunners have piled 20,000 or so guns laws on us.
And as we gun people are hit with the inevitable new gun laws in the future, laws that none of us want, maybe we should blame those people/organizations that preach about "no compromise." Because it will be obvious that their preaching had little or no effect, and actually only served as an annoyance and distraction, as will be evidenced by those future new gun laws.0 -
Compromise on one of your freedoms is giving up part of one of your freedoms.
When the opponents of the First or Second Amendment say "We want you to give up this right", we reply "Hell NO!, we will only give up part of this right". The opponents of the First or Second Amendment say "OK, that seems reasonable, we'll take it.
Next year the opponents say again "We want you to give up the remnants of this right". We reply "Hell NO!, we will only give up part of this right". The opponents say "OK, that seems reasonable, we'll take it.
The next year ? ? ? well, you get the picture. How many times can we go through this routine until there is nothing left to compromise.
Look at the condition of the First and Second Amendments. Does anyone really think we could have lost this much freedom in one swoop. We lost them over time with compromise.
Who thought twenty years ago we would be prosecuting people for what they were thinking when they committed a crime (hate crime/hate speech). Except for New York and Illinois, who thought twenty years ago you would need permission from the state to own or carry a firearm? We lost these rights over time with compromise !0 -
tr fox,
NRA- accomplishes nothing but compromises which has gotten us 20,000
or so illegal laws that they signed on to. Which means the NRA's
compromising has not stopped the Illegal laws, but the top pigs
eat very well.0 -
compromise is erosion. you know what erosion is. 0 -
The banner "No Compromise" has not been working very well for the last 30 or so years. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
The banner "No Compromise" has not been working very well for the last 30 or so years.
Neither has the "Compromise" banner....0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
The banner "No Compromise" has not been working very well for the last 30 or so years.
What do you suggest then?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Everytime I hear/read a particular person or gun rights groups condeming "compromise" I wonder exactly where the he!! they have been for the past 30 years as the anti-gunners have piled 20,000 or so guns laws on us.
And as we gun people are hit with the inevitable new gun laws in the future, laws that none of us want, maybe we should blame those people/organizations that preach about "no compromise." Because it will be obvious that their preaching had little or no effect, and actually only served as an annoyance and distraction, as will be evidenced by those future new gun laws.
I suppose, like me, they were intently watching, writing letters, calling etc, while the anti-gunners, assisted by the NRA, passed those gun laws.
If the multiple millions of NRA members would wake up and join a "no compromise" organization, such as JPFO, or GOA, then JPFO and GOA would have the power and ability to influence, or as you put it "preach", legislation like the NRA does now. The difference is that the GOA and JPFO would not be assisting in writing anti-gun and compromise legislation, they would focus a vast number of American gun owners votes, power and attention on the real issues of what the 2A means and hold government accountable.
As it stands, JPFO and GOA have only moderate influence, directly due to the massive amount of membership the NRA holds, mostly ignorant and apathetic though they may be. I guess this limited influence is an "annoyance", or a "distraction" from the important business of the NRA in steadily and with complicity, allowing America to lose its fundamental gun rights.
Shame on the JPFO and GOA for standing up for the original intent of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. What are they thinking.....How dare they interfere with the mission of the mighty NRA?[;)]0 -
Eventually it will evolve into one of two issues. Either all gun rights will be restored back to the original 100%, or there will be no guns allowed in the publics hands. Only time will tell. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by nyforester
Eventually it will evolve into one of two issues. Either all gun rights will be restored back to the original 100%, or there will be no guns allowed in the publics hands. Only time will tell.
It'll be the latter first before the former can take place. Just the way history goes -- people don't learn jack s--t from others' mistakes.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
13 comments