Europe’s Leading Rabbi: Jews Must Begin Carrying Guns

[Aragon]

If I were to move to NY or California, how exactly would RKBA be helpful to me being able to obtain and carry firearms?

Because if you moved to my country, you would be able to get the license and guns in quite a straightforward process (provided that you would be able to learn the language to pass a written exam). Hell, you might be able to get a full auto on collector's license here.

The only advantage US has that I see is that it would take two thirds of law makers to change the second amendment. It would take a simple majority to change our firearm law. So yes, we do need to push further to get gun rights in to the Czech constitution & Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, but otherwise US is not that far ahead.

Let's see. Here in CA the huge majority of firearms that are legal in other states are legal here. Further, CA is well on its way to becoming a shall-issue state when it comes to CCW. Were it not for the Bill of Rights, there would be far less gun ownership freedom here in CA.

In a practical, political sense, the Second Amendment isn't amendable. That situation doesn't exist in any European country that I know of.

 

[Snejdarek]

In a practical, political sense, the Second Amendment isn't amendable. That situation doesn't exist in any European country that I know of.

Isn't that what the slave owners thought after Dred Scott v. Sandford, relying among other on the Fifth Amendment?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The only advantage US has that I see is that it would take two thirds of law makers to change the second amendment.

No. It takes two-thirds of lawmakers to propose an amendment to the states. It then takes three-quarters of the states to ratify the proposed amendment. And there is no way in Hell they can get three-quarters of the states to repeal the Second Amendment.

 

[oneounceload]

First of all, name another country which has an actual RKBA in their laws, as we know it to be here in the United States. Especially one in Europe.

Switzerland

 

[P5 Guy]

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php

Switzerland has a comprehensive gun-control regime that is governed by federal law and implemented by the cantons. This regime may be somewhat less restrictive than that of other European countries, yet since 2008 it has complied with European Union requirements. The Swiss Weapons Act requires an acquisition license for handguns and a carrying license for the carrying of any permitted firearm for defensive purposes. Exceptions exist for hunters. Automatic weapons are banned.
Swiss militiamen may keep their issued personal weapon in their home. A popular referendum to prohibit this practice was rejected in February 2011

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Switzerland

Nope, sorry. Nice try, though. It's a natural to jump right to Switzerland as a response.


The challenge was to name another country that had an actual RKBA codified into their laws. Switzerland has no such right. Being pro-guns does not equate to a right. They have no equivalent to our Constitutional RKBA...it's NOT a "right" in Switzerland. Even their 1997 Arms Act is not equivalent.

Switzerland practices a universal conscription and requires all able-bodied men to be armed at home, even issuing weapons for that purpose. But since all gun laws in Switzerland are just that...laws and not an enumerated right in which the government is inherently restricted against infringing...the government of Switzerland may change them any time they wish and the citizens have no "right" with which to oppose such actions.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php

http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html

http://csgv2.blogspot.com/2011/03/truth-about-guns-in-switzerland.html

 

[Snejdarek]

the government of Switzerland may change them any time

To be fair, the government in Switzerland can't even pick their noses without having it approved in a referendum.

the government of Switzerland may change them any time they wish and the citizens have no "right" with which to oppose such actions

On the other hand anything the government does may be downvoted in a referendum. I would love to have such system in my country.

yet since 2008 it has complied with European Union requirements

The EU Firearms Directive should not be lumped together with restrictive laws of countries like France or Denmark. Switzerland had to align its laws when joining the Schengen Area, i.e. those European Countries that abolished internal border controls. Otherwise anyone from Poland (arguably a country with the most restrictive gun laws in Schengen area) could just drive a car to Zürich. buy guns there and bring them back home - were they would be illegal - unchecked. Very much like in US today. The Firearms Directive is in place exactly to prevent that, it has very little to do with actual access to firearms within the national borders, other than requiring permit system. Which means that the laws may vary from shall issue possession like in Switzerland through shall issue concealed carry for self defense like in the Czech Republic to no chance in hell issue like in Denmark or Poland.

The EU Firearms Directive only sets the minimum threshold that the national laws must meet. However, the countries are free to have a stricter regime if they choose so, and sadly, many in Europe have chosen so quite long before the Directive was even in the making.

Automatic weapons are banned.

That is common misreading of the European Firearms Directive. Although the directive calls them "prohibited", it does provide for "exemption permits", which makes it in reality may issue permit. As far as I know the may issue is very close to shall issue when it comes to full auto in Switzerland. It is more restricted may issue in Czech Republic and basically no issue in Poland. Again, all the countries have laws in line with EU's, but some like Poland just decide themselves to go one (or ten) steps further (and they were this restrictive long before joining EU).

The only downside the Switzerland has (apart from no 2nd Amendment) is concealed carry being restrictive may issue. But that is also (1) their own decision that may be changed in a referendum any time and (2) nothing to do with EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Comparison

 

[Aragon]

Isn't that what the slave owners thought after Dred Scott v. Sandford, relying among other on the Fifth Amendment?

I really have no idea. Once again though, in a practical/political sense, the Second Amendment isn't amendable.

 

[Snejdarek]

No. It takes two-thirds of lawmakers to propose an amendment to the states. It then takes three-quarters of the states to ratify the proposed amendment. And there is no way in Hell they can get three-quarters of the states to repeal the Second Amendment.

Thank you for pointing that out. I will make sure to remember that from now on.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

To be fair, the government in Switzerland can't even pick their noses without having it approved in a referendum.

Whether or not the government of Switzerland can fit a finger in their noses has no bearing on whether or not their government can or cannot change their laws. The fact is that they CAN change their gun laws any time they see fit because they have no enumerated limitation on the government's ability to do so.

On the other hand anything the government does may be downvoted in a referendum. I would love to have such system in my country.

Really? What you're saying, then, is that the "people" can simply vote down such laws as they see fit? As in "democratic mob rule" in which the majority may choose to impose their will? This is a two-way street. Look where the I-594 referendum ended up.

The point of the Second Amendment isn't just to place limitations on the government...it's also to enumerate a right the people have, which makes it exceedingly difficult for a majority of the people to trod on the rights of the minority.

The fact that they may have a referendum with which they MAY oppose what their government does is NOT an enumeration of a RIGHT. It's just another legal process by which the PRIVILEGE of gun ownership may be manipulated.

 

[OldMac]

Defiance is a fairly recent movie about jews in ww2 germany that decided camping in the bitter cold woods with guns was better that waiting for their train in the ghetto. It is a worthwhile movie with lots of mausers, mosins, and tokerovs. The stats of how many survived this way were shocking to me and a little sad. So many more should have survived but the anti gun laws proceeded the actual persecution so most were ill equipped to resist. Much like our revolutionary war, they were saved by those who didnt obey the unjust firearm laws. That is why we made it a right and the eu should as well. Jews or anyone else shouldnt need to be a criminal to save their own life.

 

[Ignition Override]

The only specific case I've read about where a Jewish person survived out in the wilderness during WW2 - Because of Gun Ownership - was a young lady in Ukraine who owned a hunting rifle.
Apparently she used it to scare away pursuers.

Remember the many thousands who were murdered en masse at Babi Yar, a huge trench. Many who were still alive were also buried with the dead.
It is difficult/disturbing to read through the various accounts on Google (despite previous tv programs about this), and there were a few survivors who pretended to be dead, as verification.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The only specific case I've read about where a Jewish person survived out in the wilderness during WW2 - Because of Gun Ownership - was a young lady in Ukraine who owned a hunting rifle.
Apparently she used it to scare away pursuers.

Yes, but massive resistance by a million or so armed Jews might have made a difference -- if nothing else, it would have materially weakened the Nazis.

And as I said before, if you're going to die anyway, why not fight? Why not make it as hard as possible for your enemies to kill you?

 

[Snejdarek]

And as I said before, if you're going to die anyway, why not fight? Why not make it as hard as possible for your enemies to kill you?

The moment you know that you are going for slaughter, then yes, definitely. But Nazis were never quite open about that. As Hitler put it in Mein Kampf, only a stupid person tells the real truth. They went even as far as having people write postcards from concentration camps writing about how nice the life in the new location is. When the red cross commission came to the Terezienstadt concentration camp, they made a huge show in order to convince them that the living conditions are nice and that Jews will be only relocated.

Nobody could imagine that a cultural and developed nation like Germany could do something so horrible. Czechs were in war with Germans on and off since 850s, and even they could not imagine that. Had they known that Germans will slaughter 360.000 of country's citizens (80.000 of that Jewish), they surely wouldn't back down to British and French pressure and let German, Polish and Hungarian armies invade unopposed in 1938.

The conditions in Warsaw ghetto made it clear what the Nazis are preparing for. The same was in the occupied areas of Ukraine and further, where Nazis were simply slaughtering people on the streets. But more to the West, the propaganda was all about relocation.

Kind of as with US citizens of Japanese origins. They also didn't expect to be gassed. And in the end they really were only sent to concentration camps for the war time. But how could they know at the time? Shouldn't they fight back with all they had?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The moment you know that you are going for slaughter, then yes, definitely. But Nazis were never quite open about that. As Hitler put it in Mein Kampf, only a stupid person tells the real truth. They went even as far as having people write postcards from concentration camps writing about how nice the life in the new location is. When the red cross commission came to the Terezienstadt concentration camp, they made a huge show in order to convince them that the living conditions are nice and that Jews will be only relocated.

Nobody could imagine that a cultural and developed nation like Germany could do something so horrible.

And that's true -- although a great deal of the credit must go to the unwillingness of people to believe. The evidence was there and in plain view.

 

[Snejdarek]

And that's true -- although a great deal of the credit must go to the unwillingness of people to believe. The evidence was there and in plain view.

The Nazis placed all their death camps in occupied Poland and further East and were doing the plain view massacres initially only on Soviet soil. Even the top German staff didn't want to go and see the death camps for themselves, living in denial that it is only a statistic, not real human suffering behind the numbers.

 

[TomJ]

My parents came to the US from Poland immediately after World War 2. While we're not Jewish, we lost a great number of family members to the Holocaust. My Grandfather was put in a camp and killed by the Nazi's in a brutal manner because he helped a Jewish friend hide and refused to tell them where he was. My parents and family members that survived didn't talk about their experiences much as it was too painful, however one of the things I picked up over the years was some resentment towards Jews for not joining them in the fight. There was no anti Semitism, just an undercurrent of resentment. Not being there, I make no judgements on anyone, as I've never come close to experiencing what they or Jewish people experienced.

Fast forward to today, where a great many Jewish people who survived or remember the Holocaust are determined to never let it happen again and are willing to fight to protect themselves and their loved ones. With anti Semitism and attacks on Jews growing around the world, this Jewish leader asks for the right and means to protect themselves.

We can't have it both ways in that we're critical of them when they don't protect themselves and critical of them when they want to protect themselves. JMHO, but it would be completely irresponsible for them not to demand the right and means to protect themselves.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The Nazis placed all their death camps in occupied Poland and further East and were doing the plain view massacres initially only on Soviet soil. Even the top German staff didn't want to go and see the death camps for themselves, living in denial that it is only a statistic, not real human suffering behind the numbers.

Nevertheless, there were leaks. For example, people were callously killed while being rounded up -- and everyone knew it. If they're willing to shoot some people in the street, they're telling you what's going to happen to the others.

And people could see the trains full of inmates -- look at the films made at the time, and it's clear those people aren't going on a holiday.

And finally, the Allies knew about it and made broadcasts to Occupied Europe about it.

You would have to make a determined effort NOT to know what was going on.

 

[Ignition Override]

Vern:
You made my point in a more logical context about how a large number of armed citizens could have significantly reduced the rate of mass murder.
My comments might have implied the opposite case.

Maybe somebody fluent in French has read recent comments in the French press about whether large numbers of citizens are
pressing their Own government to allow licensed civilian handgun ownership, and not just the EU?

 

[Snejdarek]

And finally, the Allies knew about it and made broadcasts to Occupied Europe about it.

That was happening quite late in the war, around 1943-4. When two Slovaks ran away from Auschwitz and wrote a very detailed report, nobody actually initially believed them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrba%E2%80%93Wetzler_report

Although they (the Jews) can and should do all possible to protect themselves, they have an unseen and omnipotent ally, Jehovah God, Himself. Read the Scriptures. Nobody in their right mind would want to provoke Him. With all they have endured through the years, they still exist, by His help.

So it seems that in your eyes doing nothing but getting on knees and praying while being killed was the right strategy?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

...


So it seems that in your eyes doing nothing but getting on knees and praying while being killed was the right strategy?

At the time and under the circumstances the were in, yes.

Maybe they could have rushed the Germans but they would have been mowed down anyway. Had they known their fate, I'm willing to bet they would have rushed the Germans anyway. Had they known their fate, there might not have been enough of them left to even be loaded on a train. Had they known their fate, there might not have been enough of them left to even be sequestered in the ghettos. That's what happens when you are disarmed. Had they known their fate, they would not have allowed themselves to be disarmed.

Be vicarious.

Woody

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Had they known their fate, they would not have allowed themselves to be disarmed.

Which is the lesson we should take from this. It CAN happen, no matter how much some people want to deny it, and the protection against another Holocaust is that every man be armed.

 

[Gun Master]

That was happening quite late in the war, around 1943-4. When two Slovaks ran away from Auschwitz and wrote a very detailed report, nobody actually initially believed them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrba%E2%80%93Wetzler_report



So it seems that in your eyes doing nothing but getting on knees and praying while being killed was the right strategy?

Snejdarek, you disregarded the 1st half of the my sentence.
*See posting # 97. ***Update - My posting #97 was removed and another posting re-numbered "97", without my permission or notification.

 

[Snejdarek]

Snejdarek, you disregarded the 1st half of the my sentence.
*See posting # 97.

Sorry, there is nothing I could say that wouldn't turn this into religious issue, therefore I rest my case.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And we don't discuss religion here. Steer clear of that subject.