29 Jan 2013
Posted by Josh Wander Faith
‘The Purpose of Our Organization Is Plain and Simple: To Destroy Gun Control’ — Meet the Jewish Group Behind That Mantra
David Bendory is not your typical Orthodox Jewish rabbi.
To start, he’s a certified National Rifle Association instructor. He takes congregants to the firing range, and he believes every Jew should know how to use a gun.
Bendory, 45, is the rabbinic director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, a Wisconsin-based, 5,700-member strong nonprofit organization that bills itself as an “educational civil rights organization” with one goal: end gun control.
“The purpose of our organization is plain and simple: to destroy gun control. Gun control is poison, that simple,” executive director Charles Heller, who is responsible for day-to-day decisions, told TheBlaze.
JPFO, as the organization is known, put out books and DVDs on the origins of gun control, including a film called “No Guns for Jews” which “documents the history of arms control against the Jewish people,” Heller said. Among other things, JPFO holds that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was taken almost entirely from Nazi-era weapons law, and it sells posters and bumper stickers bearing the Internet-famous slogan, “All in favor of gun control, raise your right hand” – complete with an image of Hitler in the Nazi salute.
Bendory’s role as rabbinic director is to ensure that JPFO stays true to Jewish principles. He believes self-defense – and with it, the freedom to own guns – is an inherently Jewish value.
“God has given you the precious gift of life, and just like any precious gift, you have the responsibility to care for that and treat it with the proper respect,” Bendory told TheBlaze. “The Talmud has a teaching that if someone is coming to killing you, strike him down first. That effectively means that while initiating violence is not ever an appropriate thing to do, violence when used in defense of self is not only righteous, but a required responsibility.”
The Essex County, N.J. rabbi estimates he’s introduced about 180 Jews to shooting. One reason he thinks every Jewish person should have a working knowledge of firearms is simple: history.
“I think that given Jewish history, I think every Jew should know how to use a firearm. It’s just a reality,” Bendory said. “I’m not saying every Jew should be a gun owner or a Second Amendment advocate, but Jews should know how to shoot a gun…that’s a skill that every Jew should have.”
Bendory himself grew up in southern New Jersey, in a “pretty typical liberal Jewish Democratic home, where gun control was a given.”
“We weren’t allowed to play with guns as kids, we weren’t allowed to play cops and robbers,” he said.
He began questioning that during his first trip to Israel, the first time he saw an actual firearm in the arms of an Israeli soldier.
“[I said] wow, look at all these people with guns to protect me and these are Jews,” Bendory said. “These are Jews protecting other Jews.”
But it was the 2008 Mumbai attacks that turned him into a public advocate for firearm training, when Islamic terrorists murdered more than 150 people in a three-day rampage, including specifically seeking out the local Orthodox Chabad-Lubavitch house and killing the rabbi and his wife.
“When I saw that, and when I saw how many Jews put their heads in the sand following that one, I said I’ve got to be more public on this issue,” Bendory said.
He has an idea why American Jews seem particularly hesitant about firearms, and — though little polling exists on the subject — seem to favor legislation restricting them.
“We as Jews believe in the messianic age, we don’t want to live in a world where guns are necessary, so, quite foolishly, there are many Jews who close their eyes to the necessity,” he said.
Heller, JPFO’s executive director, put it another way: “Jews tend to be legalistic…we tend to be law obeyers and tend to be reliers on law rather than rely on force, that’s just the way we’re oriented.”
Another part of it is that there just isn’t a “Jewish gun culture.”
“They have no index, they have no way of knowing about guns and unless they’re in military service or they grow up maybe in scouting, they have no experience of the gun culture,” Heller said. “They believe what they see on television and it’s just insane. It’s not rational to believe that limiting guns is a measure of your safety.”
In The Minority
It’s safe to say that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is firmly in the minority among Jewish organizations in America. After the Newtown, Conn. massacre, many of the country’s most prominent Jewish groups, including the Orthodox Union and the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly, came out strongly in favor of President Barack Obama’s new gun control proposals.
“As a community that has experienced mass violence, we appreciate the careful consideration that is being given to this issue,” Rabbi Steve Gutow, president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said in a statement earlier this month. “It is a national priority and we must keep up the momentum.”
Rachel Laser, deputy director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, told TheBlaze that the majority of American Jews unquestionably support gun control.
“The Jewish community wants to protect lives,” Laser said. “There’s this Jewish expression, ‘B’tzelem Elohim,’ which is that we’re all created in the image of God …we feel like there are Jewish texts and traditions that compel us to help prevent this loss of life that’s happening everywhere from the Newtowns to the streets of Chicago.”
There’s another issue, which is invoking the Holocaust and Nazi rule to make a point about gun control. The Anti-Defamation League released a statement last week calling on gun control legislation opponents to “stop using references to Hitler and the Nazis,” calling them “historically inaccurate and offensive.”
“The idea that supporters of gun control are doing something akin to what Hitler’s Germany did to strip citizens of guns in the run-up to the Second World War is historically inaccurate and offensive, especially to Holocaust survivors and their families,” Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham Foxman said.
There’s legitimate academic criticism about the gun control-Nazi regime argument. In a 2004 paper that specifically criticized JPFO, Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago Law School wrote: “The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population. Their treatment of Jewish persons is, in this sense, orthogonal to their gun-control views.”
“Nevertheless, if forced to take a position, it seems that the Nazis were relatively more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic, as evidenced by the overall relaxation of the laws regulating the acquisition, transfer and carrying of firearms reflected in the 1938 Nazi gun laws,” Harcourt wrote.
JPFO is unfazed by the criticism, insisting they’ve done their research and remain steadfast in their mission to abolish gun control.
”Very Surprised”
Heller said JPFO’s main focus right now is to grow its membership. The 24-year-old organization has increased from 3,800 members to 5,700 in just the year and a half that he’s been at the helm.
And for Bendory, bringing two, sometimes very disparate, worlds together is a unique task. When people, especially Jews, are surprised to hear he’s an Orthodox rabbi and an NRA instructor, he offers to bring them to the range so they can see firsthand how the other gun owners react to him.
“There’s this stereotype of redneck, anti-Semitic gun owners,” Bendory said. “Most people are very surprised by what they’ve found.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/28/this-orthodox-jewish-rabbi-is-an-nra-instructor-who-believes-jews-should-know-how-to-shoot-a-gun/
5 Comments
In a world gone awry it is nice to know the JPFO takes a stand against gun control. I often wondered why the Jewish population of Nazi Germany did not defend themselves. I was not aware Hitler disarmed the Jews but I also believe the normalcy bias came into play. “It can’t happen here” is again displayed in the American Jewish population. That is a shame. The evidence of a coming revolution is all around us and it is disheartening that so many, once again, won’t take heed.
We are all in this together. The things that make us unique, and different are the things we will fight to preserve together… United in the preservation of individual liberties and freedom. And history shows that it is the cycle of time that breeds the opportunity for tyrants to force their will and control over the masses. It is our ability to defend our selves from these tyrants that will preserve our freedom. It is a God given right to be free and to protect our liberties.
How many of you are aware that the Oath of Office (at all levels) is legally binding? That it is not just a political offense, but is also both a criminal and civil offense?
Criminal: Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.
5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.
5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and HAVE NOT OR WILL NOT VIOLATE THAT OATH OF OFFICE during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,
5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) REMOVAL FROM OFFICE and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.
Executive Order 10450 provision specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “THE ALTERATION… OF THE FORM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS”.
Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.
Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) ANY ACT TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE TAKEN THE OATH OF OFFICE PRESCRIBED BY 5 U.S.C. 3331 WHICH ALTERS THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT OTHER THEN BY AMENDMENT, IS A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF THE 5 U.S.C. 7311.
aLL CAPS ARE MINE) This one I have not verified: Title 18 United States Code Section 926 (Federal law Gun Control Act of 1968) makes it a FEDERAL FELONY for ANYONE to require a gun registration list of ANY kind if at any time said list in any way can or will be used as a gun confiscation list.
Civil: Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.
The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.
The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.
‘Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’
The Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses setting forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s assigned power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.
The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.
They are bound by their Oath to support the US Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure – political remedy for a political offense; civil and criminal charges.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.
Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited. The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
.
Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”
Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.
Consideration: “Consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.”
Require, Requirement, Required: Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. “To claim or ask for by right and authority; That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”
Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.”
The Framers placed the requirement for “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.
Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.
Much ignored and little known the Preamble to the Bill of Rights spells out that they are inalienable (unalienable) and 100% to limit those serving in the federal government, and state reps sent to the fed gov.
Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”
The Bill of Rights are – W Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” defined unalienable rights as used by the framers in the US Constitution:
“Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.”
Inalienable rights: “a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred”
Judges who use other then constitutional law, even using precedent which is not constitutonal need to be held accountable. Start with your state representatives and remember, they NO LONGER MEET THE LAWFUL REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OR POSITION THEY ARE OCCUPYING WHEN THEY BREAK THE OATH.
It’s actually a nice and useful piece of information. I am glad that you shared this useful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
As a Christian, I have always had respect and friendship in the Jewish community. My wife is ethnicly Jewish (her father was 100% Jewish). Throughout all of history, Jews have been targets. In this day and age, Jews are still targets in their homeland of Israel. I have visited Israel several times and have great respect for communities and country built in a resource constrained small piece of land. Another holocaust is possible. But possible only if the Jews allow themselves to be disarmed. For the sake of your unborned great-grandchildren, you must all be ready to defend yourselves. Defend yourselves from petty crimes. Defend yourselves from the evils of war. The United States is a law-abiding country that has a strong rule of law. But can you guarantee that the United States will retain the rule of law in 5, 10, 20, or 50 years from now? No one can make such a guarantee. It is the duty of freedom-loving, law-abiding people to confront and constrain evil. Evil will rise, when good people lose their vigilence, let down their guard, and become accustomed to a too comfortable life. Freedom and liberty require sacrifice. To prepare to confront evil, ever man over the age of 18 should have a rifle, pistol, stored ammunition, and training. Women are equally capable of such preparations.
I pray and hope for peace for all of God’s people of all religions. When peace is not possible, good people must have prepared ahead to confront evil.