Talk:Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

message: IMHO, the article has the following flaws - and may someone rectify them:
* The Reichgeletsblatt is no German word that actually exists. However, there is "Reich" (as in "the Third Reich"), and there is "blatt", a sheet of paper or a bulletin/journal. Newspapers are sometimes also called "-blatt", as in "Tagblatt" ("paper of the day"). "Reichsblatt" would be "Newspaper of the Reich" or something like this. "gelets" remembers me of the Dutch or Swedish language, but I've never seen "gelets" as a German word.
* Please state the source. I say it sarcastic, but everyone can make up his own historical laws and tell others about it. This is important because it is stated that the US Act was a pretty exact translation of the German one.
* Historical accuracy: Possession of weapons was never popular in Europe (well, except hunting rifles). The JPFO creates the cliché that the German jews were able to defend themselves, if they had enough guns, and it makes the impression that the rise of Hitler could have been most effectively stopped by simply shooting him instead of amending the flawed Weimar Republic laws which allowed him to assume power. Remember that Hitler, beside inciting brawls and racism, hardly violated any law.
--Keimzelle 06:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can confirm this: "Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt,' roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control." Mlorrey 22:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flaws of the article 

message: :That may have been the name. Dodd's copy was copied to microfiche by the LRS and should be in National Archives. I don't have my JPFO materials where I'm at, so I am operating off of memory. Given how many misspell my name when its put in front of their own eyes, you'll forgive me if I am colored nonplussed. BTW: before allied occupation, firearms ownership was common amongst the German people. Of course, everyone's firearms were registered so the allies were able to quickly round them all up based on the meticulous records that the German government kept of its citizens gun ownership. Mlorrey 17:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, no weapons register would have made it easier to make resistance against the allied occupying forces, but it may be that Germany was so self-assured that nobody could think of an allied invasion. To defend a country with resistance groups, a weapons registry is truly a silly idea, I admit. But the danger of criminal misuse of a weapon is still higher than an armed invasion into your country, so I would prefer a rigorous weapons tracking system. And I still look forward to read the original German text with my own eyes - I'm a Swiss, a native speaker of German. But to me, the origin of the Gun Control Act is pretty irrelevant. The JPFO, to draw an analogy, would prohibit people from saying "Gee, it's a beautiful today!" if there is proof that Hitler or any other Nazi personage has said the same phrase more than fifty years ago. Regards, --Keimzelle 21:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to get it: a) we don't get invaded specifically because so many of us have guns. As Yamomoto told Tojo about America, "There is a rifle behind every blade of grass." Yamomoto studied in the US and knew our culture pretty well for a Japanese. b) the words "Gee, it's a beautiful day today!" never sent six million people to their deaths. c) If you pay as much attention to crime in the US as you do to your German etymology, you would realize that most gun crime in the US is in states with the most gun control. My home state of NH has lower gun crime than any european nation, PLUS our property crime and non-gun related violent crime is several times lower than any european nation. Gun related murder average across the US is really the only area we are higher than europes averages, and that is just a difference of choice of weapons. Also if you look at where most big violent crimes occur, you will see they happen in gun free zones: schools, post offices, and airliners.Mlorrey 20:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, only an idiot would claim that gun control caused that Holocaust. It is simply and obviously not true. You need to get that into your head. Not everything the Nazis did is bad. It's intellectually weak to discredit something because the Nazis did something similar. It should be discredited on its merits alone. That's a basic tenet or debate. Second of all, have you ever noticed that it tends to rain more when you're carrying an umbrella? That must mean that umbrellas cause rain! Therefor, we shouldn't use umbrellas. You need to understand the basic difference between causality and correlation. Don't worry, it's pretty simple. It's *just possible* that the states enacted gun control laws to deal with high gun crime rates. I don't know where to find information on the specific locations where gun violence occurs, but your final claim seems a bit dubious.Hisownspace (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That umbrella analogy is a strawman.  Considerable research has been done to verify that violent crime thrives in the US where gun ownership and use is restricted.  Frotz (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I don't know the individual facts, I cannot at this moment deny that control and crime tend to go together. My claim was that JUST MAYBE it's the gun crimes that caused the gun control, not the other way around. If you can provide notable evidence to the contrary, I'd be willing to consider it. Also, learn the meaning of a straw man argument.Hisownspace (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "I cannot at this moment deny that control and crime tend to go together."  Meh.  Cites? Peter Camper (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Surely I can't be the only one who finds it hilarious that they whine about being labeled hicks while publishing a series called "Gran'pa Jack"...
Brianmgr 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... 

message: I do not know who initially posted the Wiki page for JPFO.  The initial article contained some highly misleading statements about JPFO, so I corrected them.  It appears that someone has erased my corrections and adapted some of my text to transmit more inaccurate information. 
I added additional information about JPFO's products and positions -- that material was also erased. 
Given the nature of Wikipedia, it is likely that those who are bent on misleading the public can continuously modify Wiki pages to pursue their agenda.  
People who want to know more about JPFO can visit its website and email its webmaster.  If you have a specific question about issues relating to "gun control", the relationship of "gun control" laws and policies to genocide and oppression, the analysis of the Second Amendment in the context of human rights, or any of JPFO's educational products, then simply email the webmaster.  To reach me in particular, ask the webmaster to relay your query to me, LegalResearcher. 
As of July 31, 2007, I will be adding and correcting the information again, supplying links to support the position. It will be interesting to see how long the accurate facts can sustain on the page before the agenda-folks modify or erase it.
LegalResearcher 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see in the history where you made any edits at all.  What information do you feel is misleading?  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disinformation Campaign on this page 

message: Can someone suggest the best way of mentioning/linkingto their new video production, "The Gang"? (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPMv4PdRcTc , http://www.youtube.com/user/jpfo1776 ) 199.214.24.87 20:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Gang" -- new anti-BATFE documentary film 

message: This page is badly in need of updating.  After Aaron Zelman's death in 2010, JPFO underwent a prolonged crisis of leadership, membership, and funding.  After a lot of hard work it began to revive under new leadership.  Unfortunately, the board made a secret deal to sell off JPFO to the Second Amendment Foundation, an organization whose goals differed from those of Aaron and the original JPFO.  SAF kept the name, but most of the JPFO core left and founded The Zelman Partisans.  None of this history is reflected in the current JPFO page, though sharp eyes may spot an inconsistency or two.  I am going to contact TZP leadership about setting up a Wikipedia page.
LiberTarHeel (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs updating 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071126220900/http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/harcourt/harcourt_fordham.pdf to http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/harcourt/harcourt_fordham.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707163927/http://www.arrangeonline.com/obituary/obituary.asp?ObituaryID=69648006 to http://www.arrangeonline.com/obituary/obituary.asp?ObituaryID=69648006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified