SAF to absorb JPFO

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
908
The Second Amendment Foundation is seeking to take-over the financially troubled Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The SAF has won useful court battles, but notably, was lambasted for its recent support of "universal background checks".

The JPFO is a pro-gun educational organization which performs no lobbying or litigation. It is focused on a unique message of how gun ownership prevents genocide, and is completely uncompromising and fire-breathing - perhaps even a bit radical, when it comes to gun control.

Here is their homepage: http://jpfo.org/

Here is an Examiner article giving a thumbnail sketch of the situation: http://www.examiner.com/article/announced-takeover-of-jewish-gun-group-provokes-controversy

Naturally, this does not sit well with those who are attracted to this uncompromising stance. One writer who contributes to JPFO has raised the alarm. Here is her take on the situation at her blog: http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2014/08/22/sellout-jpfo-to-be-handed-off-to-saf/

Personally, I don't have much of an opinion of JPFO or the SAF. Both fill different niches, and both have different functions. SAF has done great groundwork, but they are given to compromise by nature. JPFO is an uncompromising force for the 2nd Amendment, and those voices are important in providing a conscience to a movement. Their message is also interesting, and education is important.

Both are necessary, and I'm not sure I like the idea of them mixing.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
The Second Amendment Foundation endorsed the Manchin-Toomey background check bill. I'm surprised they have any credibility left after that blunder.
 
This is what happens when any such entity revolves around a single person. The entity generally dies shortly after that individual does.
 
While I'm not Jewish, I have been in contact with their organization over the past year and they seem to be very passionate about preserving gun Rights. They seem like a small group that would benefit from an infusion of funds. I don't think merging/being taken over by SAF is the right way for that to happen though. Friendly folks over there though.
 
This Jew

I support and belong to the JPFO.

And am VERY sorry that all Jew's don't get the FACT that only a man with a gun can stop a "man with a gun".

After WWII it was unbelievable that ANY Jew did not own and learn how to use any and all firearms.

I get asked that THE most from non Jew's when they find I am of that faith.

I see Bloomburg as the anti thesis of real common sense and the ability to survive as a race.

But do know that while he don't believe in YOUR right to own a firearm,or to carry one [ heaven forbid ] = he is protected by HEAVILY ARMED and trained men .

Who get to go ARMED even in countrys that forbid the ownership of guns to ANYONE.
 
I used to frequent the old JPFO BBS, back in the pre-internet days, and chatted with Aaron Zelman occasionally. But after he died, the new management didn't seem to do much. The world's ugliest web site, full of in-your-face propaganda, but nothing about what the JPFO was doing.

Sometimes an organization just runs out of steam. If Ms. Wolfe or others can attach the electrodes and shock it back into life, great. Otherwise, folding it in to the SAF is preferable to just letting it fade away.
 
I just hope that the mission of JPFO can be reinvigorated in their new home.
I'll keep my membership active.
 
TRX said:
I used to frequent the old JPFO BBS, back in the pre-internet days, and chatted with Aaron Zelman occasionally. But after he died, the new management didn't seem to do much. The world's ugliest web site, full of in-your-face propaganda, but nothing about what the JPFO was doing.

What exactly do you mean? Weren't the JPFO always about being "in your face"?

19-3Ben said:
I just hope that the mission of JPFO can be reinvigorated in their new home.
I'll keep my membership active.

I can see the concern about the potential conflict of interest with incorporating a hardcore, no compromise educational group into an organization which is best known for civil litigation, and has to be pragmatic by nature - an organization which recently endorsed a very anti-gun law.

Are you concerned that the JPFO will be de-fanged?

Are you concerned about the charge that the organization could simply become a brand-name and used as a fundraising mill?
 
Last edited:
A Jewish gun rights going broke? I don't understand why many wealthy members of this politically powerful minority are not more pro gun. Look at Hollywood, Bloomberg and all.

First of all, Jews cross over all socioeconomic boundaries. I know rich ones, poor ones, and everything in-between.

As for JPFO not being flush with cash, Jews make up somewhere around 2% of the Amercian population (compared with around 0.25% of the world population), so it really is a very very small minority in the first place. When you factor in that gun owning Jews are the minority in Jewish culture, there's just a tiny percentage of people from the population to support JPFO. Fortunately, the ranks at JPFO are open and many gentiles are/were also members.
 
I've been in contact with the JPFO since the early '90s and think they did a great job spreading a message with regard to the role of gun control in the Holocaust and other mass killings that is now historical mainstream and rather uncontroversial.

The message now is the role guns played in the Civil Rights Movement: http://smile.amazon.com/This-Nonvio...go_smi?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

Mike

PS. As far as the SAF, I don't know where to start with their support for the Manchin-Toomey monstrosity.
 
As far as the SAF, I don't know where to start with their support for the Manchin-Toomey monstrosity.
I do, and it goes something like, "They can kiss my hairy white dimpled tookus....".
 
+1 19-3Ben, I also think that the recent defensive high-intensity activities of the NRA/GOA/etc. since Newtown sucked a lot of the air out of the room. I also suspect that, as go the declining gun sales, so go donations and interest. JFPO has always been a niche group/argument, having to by definition reside almost entirely within Godwin's Rule (which makes it fairly hard to present a 'soft' or 'measured' attitude when courting interest).

Part of me likes the idea of having a faceted activist organization; as we all know, there are lots of different sides to the gun rights movement, and people are all progressed different distances down the road to enlightenment. It makes sense to have a 'hardcore radical kill-the-NFA' faction to stir interest and controversy as the day dictates, as well as a conciliatory faction working with timid and ignorant lawmakers to ensure they get the straight dope on why the opposition's good intentions are baloney, and why their own initiatives will at the very least increase liberty while doing no harm.

Hopefully the firebrands will also act as a check on 'congress-critter feedback' which can result in a moderate group like SAF backing garbage like the M-T amendment. SAF should have always been in the business of submitting text to lawmakers; not deciding whether or not whatever stuff the critters cook up with the anti's (who submit plenty on their end) is palatable enough.

TCB
 
Actually it's "toches", and sometimes "tokhes".

Either way, I share the sentiment.

If this goes through I'm going to ask for my donation back.
 
The inescapable conclusion is, had gun owners stepped up and supported a group struggling after the passing of its founder, its rescue would have been unneeded.

And there we have the bare facts. Without support, no organization survives.
 
I dated a Jewish girl for a while. Some of the jokes she told make ME (a card carrying gentile) cringe. That's the way it goes, I guess. Anyway...

I always appreciated the JPFO for being a consistent no-compromise organization. When everyone else, including the NRA, was playing the "maybe if we give them this they won't take that" game, the JPFO was not.
 
Maybe a combined JPFO and GOA would be a better match.
The SAF does so much good work in the courtroom, is it in our interests to abandon them for an occasional lapse of good judgement?
Assuming they don't have a strategy up their sleeves for doing so.
Like supporting a nasty law that's on the fast track to passage, and slip in an easily over turned ingredient to it.
Lawyers can be sneaky, and when they're on our side it's an ultimately good thing.
 
Last edited:
The JPFO is an interesting setup but they haven't been producing compelling conduct for the masses. They do great academic stuff and research but folks aren't going to really consume those goods. I'm not thrilled with SAF but they might be the right guys to breathe some new life into the outfit.

Plus I think the owner of SAF is Jewish.
 
I dated a Jewish girl for a while. Some of the jokes she told make ME (a card carrying gentile) cringe. That's the way it goes, I guess. Anyway...
I'll see your dating and raise you a marriage. Same jokes . . . Holocaust humor was pretty shocking sometimes. I can still taste her Latkes.

Mike
 
I fold. I'm just holding a pair of one night stands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top