Sunday, March 24, 2013
Gun Control / Adolf Hitler / Adam Geller / My thoughts...
I don’t wish to bore you with a tired subject, ‘Gun Control,’ but a recent article in the Oregonian newspaper forced me out of my tax preparation vegetative state.
First of all, as an aside, isn’t our tax system ridiculous? I’m one of those guys, probably in the minority, that tries to be honest – which is difficult when you don’t know what-in-the-hell they (the IRS) are asking for. I know I should hire someone to do my taxes. But, tax preparation is sort of a challenge. Don’t you think? I do have a college degree. Unfortunately, my degree is from a public college. I’m sure the Ivy League guys and gals whip right through their annual tax prep. I don’t happen to know anyone who attended an Ivy League school. They usually reside in an alternate universe far from here.
Oh, yes, regarding ‘gun control.’ The article was titled Hitler’s Name Joins Gun Debate, The Sunday Oregonian, and dated 3/24/13. The author was Adam Geller with the Associated Press. I couldn’t find much about him (didn’t look too hard), lives in
New York City; and doubt he has a gun,
probably never shot one. In summary, he
was (might I say) delicately criticizing those who have raised Hitler’s name as
a promoter of gun control and the concept that Hitler’s measures had a
deleterious effect on the Jewish population’s ability to resist. Not so says Geller’s research. In fact, he pointed out that Hitler actually
loosened gun control measures for the German people – except for the Jews.
Geller ambiguously pointed out that Hitler’s 1938 law prohibited Jews from owning guns. On the other hand, Geller noted that few Jews owned guns in the first place and they were but 2% of the German population – so this was not necessarily a big deal – that they (the Jews) couldn’t have significantly resisted the German war machine anyway.
Now, I’m not sure that Hitler’s measures regarding the Jewish population has any relevance to our modern American culture, our government, and guns. But, I can’t totally discount it either. There are so many better arguments involving guns. I’ve said this before, but if you expect the police to protect you in any contingency (criminal act, natural disaster, etc.), you will be disappointed. Are the odds in your favor that you will never face a life threat to you or your family? Yes. But, perhaps more importantly, if the unexpected should happen, are you willing or prepared to “go gentle into that good night,” or will you fight like a tiger?
I like hanging with the tigers.