the following, including the linked article, strikes one as interesting

Status
Not open for further replies.

alan

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
sowest pa.
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

July 22, 2005

JPFO ALERT: THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ALIVE AND WELL

You may have seen an article that's been making the rounds
of the Internet:

"The Second Amendment is Already Dead"
By David Brownlow
http://tinyurl.com/cc3gh or
http://www.newswithviews.com/Brownlow/david43.htm

Although we think it's an interesting article, worth
reading and discussing, The Liberty Crew respectfully begs
to differ.

Mr. Brownlow makes two main points. First, he says that the
Second Amendment is dead because government dares to tell
us what arms we can and cannot own. Next, he claims that
since the weaponry possessed b today's U.S. government is
so much more powerful than the weaponry in citizens' hands
that citizens no longer have any hope of protecting
themselves against another "long train of abuses" like the
one the American colonists rebelled against.

Wrong on both counts. And here's why.

A RIGHT DOESN'T DISAPPEAR SO EASILY

A right remains a right, no matter what any government says
or does. Rights are G-d-given.* Rights are inborn.

It is certainly true that governments ride rough-shod over
rights. But to say that right is dead because a government
abuses it is rather like saying that the sky is red with
purple polka-dots just because some legislature says so.

Many people mistake the Bill of Rights for a contract.
Contracts can be altered at will by the parties involved.
The Bill of Rights is NOT a contract. It is an
acknowledgment of pre-existing conditions.

When the government violates any of the Bill's provisions,
then that government may cease to be worthy of our respect
or obedience, but the rights remain. The damage can be
undone. If someone tries to kill you, you still have the
right to defend yourself with the best weaponry for the
job. If a government tries to tyrannize you, you still have
the right to arm yourself against it.

Still doubt that? Then ask yourself this: If you had to sit
down and negotiate today, would YOU make YOUR right of
self-defense conditional on contract law?

No, we didn't think so. And the Founders didn't, either.

IT'S NOT THE WEAPONRY, IT'S THE WILL

Anyone who has studied history -- or even lived through the
last 30 or 40 years -- should recognize the fallacy in Mr.
Brownlow's other point -- that because we are drastically
outgunned, we have no hope of ever rebelling against
government, should conditions get that bad.

No long arguments are needed -- just a few words: the
Warsaw Ghetto, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.

In each of these places, local people, sometimes with crude
and improvised weapons, fought (or are fighting) global
powers to a standstill. Guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan
not only drove out the Soviet army; they triggered the
downfall of the Soviet empire. And before that, they broke
the will of the British empire. Likewise, the Vietnamese
stopped both the French and the Americans.

Here's another two-word phrase that demonstrates why Mr.
Brownlow is wrong: The Liberator.

The Liberator was a crude, cheap, American-made pistol,
used in France, the Philippines, and China during World War
II. It fired just one shot and had just one purpose: to
enable local partisans to kill occupying soldiers and seize
their -- far superior -- weapons. (Here's an article with
photos:
http://tinyurl.com/9tyd8 or
http://www.nfa.ca/nfafiles/cfjarchi...ms/liberator.ht
ml.)

Crude weapons obtain better ones. Simple weapons obtain
sophisticated ones. And every abusive government also ends
up training soldiers who later may have both the will and
the skill to turn its own weapons against it.

History everywhere shows that a fire in the belly -- the
will to be free -- triumphs over superior weaponry.

So read Mr. Brownlow's article and consider its arguments.
But never despair. The Second Amendment is alive and well
and will remain so as long as armed Americans possess the
will to defend their own homes, neighborhoods, and families
against some future tyranny.

- The Liberty Crew

-----

* We spell G-d this way because in Judiasm it is considered
disrespectful to utter the name of the Creator outside of
sacred settings.


==================================================
==========

JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net

==================================================
==========

LET JPFO KEEP YOU INFORMED -- Sign up today for JPFO Alerts!
Just send a blank e-mail to [email protected]

==================================================
===========

Regain your freedom - download the song "Justice Day" today!
http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html

==================================================
===========

Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2005 JPFO, Inc.
Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long
as the following JPFO contact information is included:

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

Phone: 1-262-673-9745
Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!)
Fax: 1-262-673-9746
Web: http://www.jpfo.org/
 
My understanding is that the reason why Jews write G-d is because they're not allowed to throw away anything that has God's name on it. So if a Jewish person writes God on a piece of paper theoretically he has to keep it forever. I don't know if that applies to email at all.
 
Publius, respectfully Sir, in what way does a simple Jewish belief offend you? I would hope that on this forum we could focus on the message and not the messenger.
 
Great meesage from JPFO, but we focus on the footnotes....oops. Thank for posting that little ray of sunshine - doom and gloom get oppressive after a while.
 
Oh G-d another post about jews!

Preacherman, better get over here and lock this thread down.

I find it highly offensive, why do others get to talk about jews but not me?

Chas "The Kike" Martel
 
But God isnt the jewish name for the Almighty. So why should there be any more restriction on referring to him by one of these names than by one of the Hebrew euphamisms like Almighty, Our Father, etc?

The whole concept of knowing the name of a thing granting power over that thing died out millenia ago. Well mostly died out.
 
bear, it doesn't offend me. I'm a jpfo contributor, and never really noticed that before on their alerts. It just seems kind of odd to me, is all.

How sacred does a situation have to be?
A right remains a right, no matter what any government says or does. Rights are G-d-given.* Rights are inborn.
And if that situation is not sacred enough, how is it OK to type G-d, but not God? I don't want to hijack the thread with an offhand comment, and I hope no one was offended by it.

Getting back to the point of the article, it's true that rights are not extinguished when governments ignore them, and that the spirit of resistance has proven impossible to completely destroy, but I'd say the Second Amendment is pretty inoperative at the moment. Unincorporated might be a better word...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top