1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun control: racist and anti-Semitic Gun Ban Origins

Discussion in 'Legal' started by 2dogs, May 16, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    the city

    Gun control: racist and anti-Semitic
    Gun Ban Origins
    By Ted Lang © 2003

    Racism and anti-Semitism invoke liberal outrage and renunciation. Liberalism’s primary goal is converting the individual constitutional freedoms of every American to a collectivist, socialist utopia administered by compassionate Big Brother government.
    In a research paper published October 22, 1997 for the Cato Institute, Jeffrey R. Snyder traces the origins of gun control in America. His Policy Analysis No. 284, entitled "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun," was obviously written to promote the Second Amendment right of each and every citizen to own and carry a firearm. Right-to carry legislation now exists in 35 states representing 70 percent of America.

    In an article by CNSNews.com posted on December 22, 2000, entitled "Poll Shows America Has Conservative Values," it was stated that: "On gun control, 70 percent of those contacted in the Zogby [American Values] poll favored better enforcement of current laws instead of creating new laws." Said another way, 70 percent of Americans think we already have enough gun laws!

    The media, CBS, ABC, NBC and The New York Times, are still at odds with the grass roots referendum voters considered in Washington State in 1997. In that referendum, No. 676 guaranteed as a shoe-in by Tom Brokaw, Washington voters buried the mainstream media and gun controllers by 71 percent! I believe it is safe to say that 70 percent of America opposes further gun control!

    Not only is it unpopular, but Snyder offers: "Ten years ago [1987] a controversial ‘concealed-carry’ law went into effect in the state of Florida. In a sharp break from the conventional wisdom at the time, that law allowed adult citizens to carry concealed firearms in public. Many people feared the law would quickly lead to disaster: blood would literally be running in the streets. Now, 10 years later, it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate today over concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate." Conversely, total gun bans in England and Australia have unleashed gun crime violence of epidemic proportions.

    Snyder goes on: "To the shock and dismay of gun control proponents, concealed-carry reform has proven to be wildly popular among state lawmakers. Since Florida launched its experiment with concealed-carry in October 1987, [35] states have enacted similar laws, with positive results." Snyder delves into the origins.

    Law professors Robert Cottrel and Raymond Diamond suggest that the desire to control blacks was the principal, or at least a significant, reason for the Southern gun control laws in the years preceding the Civil War. While that may explain the laws that licensed blacks to carry or own guns or prohibited them from carrying or owning arms, it does not explain why the Southern states took the additional step of restricting whites from carrying arms concealed. The answer, according to Cramer, may lie in the abolition movement….

    In the South, where slaveholders were overwhelmingly in control, laws to protect attacking mobs from the unfair advantage of abolitionists carrying concealed weapons would not be surprising…. In Northern states, where slaveholders had little direct influence on state governments, the need to keep abolitionists in fear might have been less obvious….

    While Northern states may have favored the discretionary licensing laws as a means of ensuring that Italians, Jews, labor agitators, or others with radical political beliefs did not obtain arms, Southern states favored such laws because the broad discretion permitted maneuvering room to deny permits to African-Americans.

    Aaron Zelman is the Executive Director of the organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, or simply "JPFO." Zelman’s contribution is that it was he who detected the similarities in the late Democrat Senator Thomas Dodd’s 1968 Gun Control Act and that of the 1938 Nazi Gun Control Act that targeted the Jewish population in Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Zelman’s efforts can be found at the JPFO website.

    Zelman’s contention is the Senator Dodd, who served as a senior legal assistant during the Nuremberg trials, had copies of the Nazi gun laws, deleted mention of the "Jews" in his legislation, but incorporated as much of this methodology as possible in the 1968 "law:"

    Some sample sections of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 provided by JPFO:

    Jews… are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
    Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

    3. The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in Section 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

    Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of Section 1 will be punished with imprisonment and fined. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

    Of course, Zelman is hard pressed to explain why fellow Jews, Feinstein, Schumer and New Jersey’s Lautenberg and Weinberg, support such "legislation." Aren’t we all?
  2. MeekandMild

    MeekandMild Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    2dogs, This is pretty much a given. Mentioning it is one of the fastest ways I know to shut up a noisy anti in the workplace.
  3. geegee

    geegee Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    North Texas
    Agreed. Or, ask that same anti "What would you think of restricting a Constitutionally protected right to selected groups...say minorities ?" After his response, show him this article.

    No liberal alive would defend the abrogation of any Constitutional right, yet gun control to them is so reasonable. :fire: geegee
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page