::::::::
In his diary entry, "Supporting the NRA's agendas", Rabbi makes a number of interesting points. His words are in italics below.
In my experience, even when I fully support the NRA's agendas, gun people still want to fly off the handle and argue the point. I support the NRA for different reasons other than their stated agenda.
The National Republican Association sometimes stands for gun rights and sometimes doesn't. They always stand for advancing the Republican Party, which is the major reason to not like them. Much better is Gun Owners of America.
Gun People think they are being profound when they bring in the argument of the Jews during the German time period 1933 – 1945. People bring this argument in and they know nothing of the time period, the social mindset, the moral code, the Jewish mindset, and the culture of Germany.
I know what Rabbi's getting at, but it just proves the point that people need to be able to defend themselves.
Gun people think they are being profound by making references to other countries and commenting how peaceful that country is with an armed citizenry. The US is not culturally related to the Swiss, nor is a majority of American men in the military reserves as the Swiss are. Another example of a country the gun people bring is Israel and the fact people (mostly military and the reserves) carry guns and things are just dandy. The US is not Israel, and Israel is not the US. We are two different societies, moral codes, and two different national agendas.
This is a dodge not an argument. All countries are inhabited by Human Beings. Therefore, we can learn for others. Their experiences are relevant.
The gun people generally avoid the topic of the abuses of an armed militia in places such as in the case of Rwanda, Iraq, and Somalia.
In Rwanda the government imposed gun control leaving the Tutsi unarmed while the government armed the Hutus.
The problem in Iraq is that it's an artificial construct. there's no logic to it's existence. The British created it for ease of governing the region. It should be at least three separate countries.
Somalia is a situation similar to Iraq.
At the root of the problems in these three areas is government intervention.
Gun people completely want to over look America's genocidal episode in the late 19th century, and we'd rather not read about the slaughter at Wounded Knee when armed militia people killed old people and children.
The problem here was government not armed citizens. The Founders warned us against having a standing army.
Gun people want guns to defend themselves against armed criminals they say. But we never have discussed the point where are the criminals getting their guns. Please don't bring up the old story of thefts from guns stores – gun stores do not have to report thefts and the argument cannot be supported.
I'd be happy to discuss this. Where does Rabbi think criminals get their guns?
We saw, for example, in the mall shooting not long ago, the gun people ran away rather than stopping the armed criminal. Not a single person took a position and fired back. Obviously we don't have the fortitude to back our words.
This is too vague. Which mall shooting is Rabbi referring to?
Gun people claim they are preventing a tyrant government, yet, they want to ignore the fact that the NRA is congress' favorite son and the NRA has gotten everything they want. However, the gun people want to shout down the First Amendment rights of others and what then is tyranny.
Yes, an armed citizenry can resist a tyrannical government. What does the NRA have to do with that?
Nobody is shouting down anyone. Personally, I rather enjoy these kinds of debates.
Gun people have argued the point that the government is out to take their guns away and there is absolutely no evidence of that being the case and that is called paranoia – a severe psychiatric disorder. Or, the verbiage is to create a false threat to rally the gun people into a common cause the creation of a common enemy
A quick look at places like the UK and Australia, where guns are banned, should suffice to debunk this one. In the UK they're instituting knife control now.
Gun people claim they are preventing another Hitler from coming into power without knowing exactly how Hitler democratically came into power. Another example used is preventing another Lenin – and the gun people refuse to acknowledge that is was through an armed citizenry that Lenin achieved total power.
Both of these characters came to power through government mechanisms. Hitler by being elected and Lenin by creating his own government by force. That doesn't change the fact that both wanted a disarmed citizenry that couldn't resist their tyranny.
Gun people claim they are law abiding and I wonder how many of them cheat on their taxes, speed, run red lights, and other misdemeanors. Law abiding means full compliance with the laws of this country – not just obeying a certain set of select laws.
This is irrelevant, there's nothing wrong with disobeying tyrannical laws:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
-- Thomas Jefferson
I will not support the NRA, or the gun people, using only the language they only want to hear because that means treated them like three-year-olds. By giving the NRA everything they want we will see if we are better off in an armed society or worse off. If we are better off, then we made the right decision. If we are worse off, then, we did it to ourselves.
The NRA isn't the totality of the guns rights movement. There are many, such as myself, that stand for gun rights and dislike the NRA.
Regardless, an armed society is a free and safe one.
One last thought, shirking responsibility for the preservation of one's liberty and security is cowardly. I see a large measure of this in those who think they can turn both over to the government.
