Category Archives: Gun Rights

An Inquiry into the General Lack of Violent Jewish Resistance to the Holocaust

Posted on by

I’ve often wondered about and even done some research into why the targets of the Nazi genocide didn’t put up more resistance.  I forget the exact numbers and my book (I think the title is Hitlers Willing Executioners) that has it is still packed away with my other stuff from PNNL but one group of about 500 “policemen” went through Eastern Europe rounding up Jews, forcing them to dig trenches, strip, and then shooting them.  They murdered something like 16,000 Jews in six months before suffering their first two casualties.  And those were from non-Jewish Polish partisans!  What in the world was going on in the minds of the victims?  Couldn’t they find any type of weapon?  Okay, access to firearms was difficult, we learned a lesson there and it won’t happen here, but weren’t there any axes, pitchforks, gasoline, matches, or table legs?  These thugs killed every Jew in the next town over, they were going to kill every Jew in this and the next 20 towns.  So why didn’t they at least slow them down, make them find replacements, and increase the resource costs to implement their evil?  Even if the kill ratio was 1:100 thousands of lives would have been saved.

This article give the best explanation I have come across.  There was some violent resistance and the article examines what the necessary conditions were such that resistance occurred:

For a Jew caught up in the Holocaust, there were many factors to consider when deciding on a course of action. For an individual considering armed, violent resistance, these included:

  • Concern for family members and dependants: all those close to a fighter would be put at risk by his (or her) actions.
  • Access to arms­: how is one to fight the Germans? Some sort of weapon is necessary, and would have to be acquired.
  • Hope for an easy solution: many believed that their situation would be resolved by itself, and thus to risks one’s life fighting was needless.
  • Respected leadership: ­from both a practical and psychological view, fighting back required leaders to organize and encourage individuals.
  • Motivation: be it survival, revenge, or informing the world of the Nazi actions, a goal was essential for a would-be fighter.

By investigating the relative importance of these factors in several instances of armed Jewish resistance, it should become clearer what was required for the average victim to resort to violence.

The article does a good job of briefly exploring these factors and gives examples of Jewish resistance I was previoiusly unaware of (one example I was aware of isn’t mentioned but the conditions there were somewhat unique).

Another factor, which a reader emailed me years ago and I can’t find right now, was that the mindset of people in Germany and Europe in general is much different than that in American and extremely different from that of the gun owners here.  “Authority” was (and probably still is) respected far, far more there than it is here.  If someone in a uniform, carrying a gun or not, gives you an order then you obey.  The concept of an illegal order was out of intellectual and cultural reach.

The article concludes with content which, to me, seems incomprehensible that it needs to be said.  But for someone with a totally alien mindset from mine I suppose it needs to be articulated:

The Holocaust provides several compelling examples of such salvation through violence. The death camp of Belzec operated without significant hindrance until it was closed for a lack of victims to burn after engulfing an estimated 600,000 victims.  After its final trainload of deportees was gassed and cremated, the Jewish staff laborers were shot dead.  To this day, only a handful of prisoners are known to have escaped Belzec alive. One significant difference between Belzec and its sister death camp, Treblinka, is that the killing at Treblinka ceased long before it ran out of victims. The prisoners of Treblinka rose up with arms and were able to escape and burn most of the camp to the ground. Not only were several score of prisoners able to survive to fight on as partisans and bear witness of their tribulations, but they ended the murders at Treblinka. The camp was never rebuilt in the wake of their revolt. The same is true for the extermination camp of Sobibor after the prisoners broke out of the camp, it was shut down. The revolts of the prisoners in both camps were the direct cause of their closure. It is clear that without these rebellions, Jews, Gypsies, and other German “undesirables” would have continued to be executed for weeks to come in these places.

…

A final, and oft overlooked outcome of the revolts was the reclamation of simple human dignity by the fighters. The individuals incarcerated in the camps of the German extermination system died deliberately starved, beaten, helpless and dehumanized. They were subjected to the most brutal of tortures and the most degrading of conditions. No human being deserves to die in such a state. To fight back gave them the opportunity to have a hand in their fate; it gave them back the dignity that is the essence of being human.

See also my posting “Why Boomershoot?“

This is the second posting with a Jewish theme in as many days.  Some of it is coincidence but also I’m reading Harry Turtledove’s book In the Presence of Mine Enemies.  This is an alternate history where the Nazis won WW II and exterminated all but a few Jews who are “hiding” in plain sight.  The book is a bit slow and there are too many bridge games but because this has been a long term topic of interest for me I am enjoying the book.

Smashing stereotypes

Posted on by

I didn’t know this, in part because I’m oblivious to many things like this, but the NRA President is Jewish.  No, I’m not so oblivious to have not noticed that she is also a woman.

The latest example

Posted on by

As near as I can determine people who desire restrictions on firearms have zero connectivity with reality.  They haven’t looked at the history of gun control to determine what happens in the real world.  This determination is the basis for my Just One Question–which no one has ever attempted to answer.  In addition to the safety and security issues which are my main concerns there are the enforceability, corruption, and abuse of power issues.  The current situation in South Africa is just the latest example of what happens when you allow the government to attempt implementing “common sense” restrictions:

The Black Gun Owners’ Association says it is preparing to sue the Minister of Safety and Security, Charles Nqakula, on behalf of thousands of prospective gun owners who have paid fees in advance to comply with new firearm licence legislation, only to have their applications and requests for refunds refused by the South African Police Service.

…

To comply with legislation, applicants paid up to R1 500 for training courses, safes and competency certificates, only to have their applications denied.

“Everything has been planned for people not to obtain licences. The government has made a big blunder. The minister (Nqakula) said he does not want illegal firearms, so why is he refusing people legal firearms?

“The new law is encouraging people to support illegal firearms. In South Africa, firearms are readily available and some of the people selling illegal firearms are police (disposing of) amnesty firearms,” he said.

…

Durban Guns and Ammo owner Justin Willmers said more than 1 000 applications submitted via his shop, after waiting two years to be processed, had been refused on appeal.

He said applicants had received identical response letters saying they had not given a “substantial reason” as to why they could not use alternative means of protection.

“Since July 1 last year, I have not sold one gun,” Willmers said. He said when customers realised the lengthy processes involved in obtaining a firearm legally, they simply turned to the black market.

…

Suter claimed the police had neither the capacity nor the expertise to administer licence renewals from the country’s roughly 2,5-million gun owners. And with three and a half years left to renew 4,5-million firearm licences, at the current pace of work, it would take 26 875 years, he said.

Responding to claims the NRA is a “special interest”

Posted on by

“This is a day in America when the little guy lost out to powerful special interests.”

– Michael Barnes, President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence

That is the lead to this article by Howard Nemerov.  You know Barnes is full of crap just from his association with the Brady bunch.  But I didn’t know the other details outlined in that great article.  Nemeroy also says this about Barnes:

He is a Washington insider, having been a congressman from 1979-1987. He is a lawyer who has an association with the law firm of Hogan & Hartson.

He thens goes on to tell how much money lawyers have been donating to our politicians and how those politicians are a “Who’s Who” of those that voted against the bill to outlaw frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufactures.

If you like well documented, hard facts kind of reading go read the rest of it.

A bit of a side note–I haven’t crowed about this bill passing the Senate for various reasons.  Stephanie sent me this link which articulates some of the reasons not to be overjoyed about passage of this law.  I agree with everything in the article but if I were to vote on the bill I probably “hold my nose” and vote “Yes”.  The reality is the Federal government exercises way more power than it was granted by the Constitution.  But failure to exercise that power for good does not lessen the evils that excess of power brings.  That excess of power must be reduced in a manner which reduces evil as much or more than the good that can be done with that power.  Failure to accept this good does not accomplish that.

Quote of the day–Machiavelli

Posted on by

An armed republic submits less easily to the rule of one of its citizens than a republic armed by foreign forces. Rome and Sparta were for many centuries well-armed and free. The Swiss are well-armed and enjoy great freedom. Among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible. It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe among armed servants.

Machiavelli
The Prince; Chapter 17

Searching for PNNL info

Posted on by

I’ve been watching the log for my PNNL info site and noticed there were a fair number of referrals coming in from search engines.  I did my own searches and came up with interesting results:

The other search engines appear to be a little behind but they don’t matter nearly as much.

Thanks to everyone for linking to the site as per my suggestions on this page.  That helped make the above happen.

I’m in the process of making some more changes that should boost the visibility even more.  And since I’ve been seeing the Google bot traverse the website recently that can only be good news.

18 USC 241

Posted on by

Barb and I made it back home tonight and as I was going through my piles of email I found this gem from Alan Korwin, author of numerous books on gun laws:

18 USC 241. If two or more people conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured under the Constitution or laws of the United States, they shall be fined, or imprisoned up to ten years, or both.

I wonder… Does firing someone from their job meet the legal definition of “injure” or “oppress”?  I’m not sure–but you can be certain I will be finding out soon.

Quote of the day–Greg Hamilton

Posted on by

You can’t shoot somebody just because they are a scumbag.  They have to have the ability, opportunity, and have put an innocent person in imminent jeopardy of life or serious bodily harm.  If you are looking to just shoot somebody go to some other country and buy a tag.

Greg Hamilton
Self Defense Instructor
Nov. 19, 1995

Quote of the day–Walter Williams

Posted on by

The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms in order to have a “well-regulated militia.”  People with little understanding interpret that as meaning the National Guard or some other government organization.  But here’s how George Mason, one of our unsung framers, responded to the question, “I ask, sir, what is a militia?”  Mason answered, “It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”  James Madison said, “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.”

George Washington said, “When firearms go, all else goes…we need them every hour.”  The framers of our Constitution knew well that an armed citizenry was the ultimate defense against government tyranny.  As for crime, Thomas Paine said, “The peaceable part of mankind will be overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense…(but) arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe….Horid mischief would ensue were the good deprived of the use of them.”

-Walter Williams-
Periodical
Colorado Springs Gazette
4/24/94

Quote of the day–Harry Thomas

Posted on by

And Miss (Attorney General Janet) Reno, I say to you: If you send your jackbooted, baby-burning bushwackers to confiscate my guns, pack them a lunch.  It will be a damned long day.  The Branch Davidians were amateurs.  

I’m a professional.

Harry Thomas
NRA Board Member

Off again

Posted on by

Barb and I have been home for a few hours now and we are about to leave again for a few more days of vacation.  Earlier this week we visited Washington State (Benton City), Oregon (Madras and Mt. Hood), Nevada (McDermitt, Virginia City, and Tahoe), and California (Carmichael).

Barb asked why I talk about the “compound” and my “arsenal” in previous posts about leaving home with the kids in charge.  It’s because back in the late 90’s when I worked at Microsoft every time some gun owner would get arrested the police would pile all his guns and ammo on the front lawn for the media to take pictures of.  And the news people would talk about his “arsenal”.  If the guy was in a little bit of a rural area and had a few outbuildings then they would say he had a “compound”.  It became a joke with the Microsoft Gun Club.  The media was choosing words to demonize gun owners.  We adapted the words and made fun of them.  I am just continuing in that fashion.  Just like the “Red-necked, knuckle dragging, Neanderthal” subtitle.  You neutralize the people who attempt to demonize you buy adopting words prior to them using them on you.  So…

Again the kids, dogs, and cat are in charge of the “arsenal” and the “compound” while we are gone.  Xenia will post the Quote of the Day until I get Internet access again.

The magazine interview

Posted on by

A few days ago I posted that a magazine wanted to interview me about being fired as a result of my blogging.  The email was sent on Sunday morning and I didn’t receive it until very late on Sunday night when I came into civilization and an Internet connection.  It turns out I didn’t get back in touch with them in time to meet their deadline–so no interview.

It was People Magazine.

A response to Kim du Toit

Posted on by

Kim du Toit posted about both his and my adverse experiences because of our websites.  Kim made a comment about PNNL being “a company of skunks”.  I posted a comment in response and I think the same posting here is justified.  I fixed a few typos and grammar errors but otherwise the following posting is the same as my comment there:

My “model” for what happened to me was that there were a few people that had big anti-gun biases and no checks and balances for the power they held.  None of my co-workers, my project manager, nor none of the people in the projects I managed were ever asked anything about me.  Some of them first found out I had been fired, after not being able to make contact with me for a couple weeks, by reading my blog!  I suspect “Safeguards and Security” gets raises based on how many people they get fired or disciplined.  In that situation they look for whoever has the highest “profile”–me in this case.  And the process apparently doesn’t allow for presentation of the evidence to the accused and a chance for the accused to present evidence or witnesses in their favor.  For example: They asked me if there was any Official Use Only (OUO) material on a laptop when my wife and daughter used it.  I said no, I didn’t think so.  A few days later I remembered there were some documents that were marked OUO.  But those documents were old.  All the OUO restrictions had been removed but the documents on the computer had not been updated and the OUO markings removed.  They did not ask me or any one that might have known that.  I suspect, but can’t say for certain, that is one instance of how they claimed I violated policy.  There were numerous other things that I suspect they may have discovered that at first glance looked bad but had innocent or even praiseworthy justification.  They never asked anyone who would have known the truth.

So… my summation of the situation is: The Process is Broken.  For the most part I believe the lab and the people there are doing a decent job and are decent people.  Some of the projects really should be done in the private sector rather than on taxpayer money but that isn’t the fault of the lab.  That is the fault of our congress critters.

In my particular case management is in a tough position.  A couple of jerks screwed me over.  I suspect management has done their own investigation by now and know my case has at least some merit.  Now what do they do?  Their main function is the make the company money.  If they fire the jerks, as they should be, then I can use that against them in my wrongful termination suit–costing the company money.  If they come to me and say, “We have a couple of bad eggs and a bad process, we want to make it right with you.”  then they put themselves in the position of giving away money they didn’t have to.   What they have to do, in my opinion, is wait for me to file my lawsuit then evaluate their chances of winning and the cost of doing so versus settling with me.  Throw in the bad publicity they will have to deal with while the event is going on and afterwords, if I win, and come up what gives them the best odds financially.  One cannot expect them to “do the right thing”.  It would be unethical from the standpoint of the company finances.   They must be forced to do the right thing.

So… I tend to disagree with Kim’s assessment.

My “job” at this point is to help them realize the truth coming out will be more financially painful than fixing the problems a bad process and a couple of “bad eggs” created.  The FOIA requests, the Privacy Act Information Requests, and the publicity around my experience will be a festering boil for them.  The lawsuit will just be the lance that forces it to drain and heal with as little scaring as possible–for everyone except the couple of jerks.  Those people need to be held personally responsible and there is a fair chance I may be able to accomplish that.

Quote of the day–Alphan Oumar Konare

Posted on by

The political, economic and social consequences of the anarchic proliferation of light weapons are well known.  They are the millions of victims, most of them civilians, the displaced populations with their tears and suffering, the phenomena of child soldiers, terrorism and wide-scale banditry in urban areas. This belief in disarmament does not proceed from idealism, or from naivete. The best strategy for prevention of armed conflict is to eliminate the means of violence.

Alphan Oumar Konare
President of Mali
Oslo, April 1998
From http://www.prepcom.org/low/index.html

I must have gotten their attention

Posted on by

I got a call from daughter Xenia this afternoon.  A letter from Battelle came in the mail today.  She said, “It looks like a report card.”  What she meant was that each side had to be ripped off before you could open it.  “Oh, I’ll bet it’s my last paycheck”, I said.  I didn’t expect one because I just had two days of vacation left and they had paid me for two days that I was suspended without pay.  I asked Xenia to open it.  It was a check.  A check for $0.00.

I laughed for quite a while about that.  I have my speculation as to why it would show up over two months after my last day on the job and why they bothered to send me a check for $0.00.  I think it has something (and I have my suspicions about the exact reason) to do with the new website about bigotry at PNNL (PNNL is operated by Battelle who issues the paychecks) I put up last weekend.

I think I’ll frame that check–although I will always wonder what the bank would have said if I deposited it.

Update: By popular demand:

Click on the image for a high resolution version.

Doubt

Posted on by

Every once in a while I have doubt.  Maybe I did do something wrong.  Maybe I did step over the line and deserve to get fired.  When I was in the first meeting I thought maybe there was something that I got carried away with.  The next day I reviewed everything I could find on my blog.  There was nothing that should have been a problem.  I felt better in some ways but things still didn’t make sense.  Why were they making it into a problem?

I was required to talk with the HR people and I thought it went really well.  They asked factual questions that were not judgment calls.  “Did you know this was a rule?”  “Yes.”  “Did you ever break this rule?”  “No.”  Almost all the questions were easy stuff.  Virtually nothing was ambiguous–which was a problem for me with the first meeting.  Immediately after the meeting I was suspended without pay–which was a shock.  As I drove home the doubt crept in.  What had I done that was so bad?  Maybe I had done something but couldn’t remember it.  I had time to think about things and to try and make sense of it.  They weren’t giving me any more information but I had another source–my web access log files.  I did a quick scan of them and I could see a pattern.  And I could see they had lied to me in that first meeting.  Why lie?  What in the world did they have to gain by that lie?  And they were still looking HARD for stuff in my websites during and after the HR meeting.  I felt better.  There were people out to get me and if there was something I had actually done they should have found it by now and they wouldn’t have to lie about little things.

When I got the call and was told I was fired I was certain.  There had not been any further questions of me.  I knew there was stuff that looked bad but had completely innocent explanations.  They didn’t ask about anything so I knew they weren’t interested in the truth about me.  My web access logs were my only real hope of learning the truth about them.  More reviewing of the logs seemed consistent with my first impression.  But as I continued looking and annotating the logs I began to have doubts.  Maybe it was just a random search through things and it just happened that the firearms stuff was what they looked at first and last.  Then I looked at the times when PUCK would have been preparing for the first meeting.  I was enraged. And I had no doubt.

In the last few days I came to doubt again.  I would look at the preparation time and wonder if maybe there was another explanation.  It’s easy to believe what you want to believe.  Then last night I got a call from someone.  A completely independent source confirmed something I had suspected.  It’s not a “smoking gun”.  It’s not something that is irrefutable proof on it’s own.  It’s like “fingerprints at the crime scene” and there is no contraindicating evidence.  I have no doubt.

Quote of the day–National Crime Prevention Council

Posted on by

Don’t carry a weapon. You lose, whether you use it or it’s used on you.

National Crime Prevention Council
10 things you can do.  Tip number 8.
From: http://www.weprevent.org/your10.htm (as of March 10, 1999)

PNNL Info update

Posted on by

While I am still many hundreds of miles away from home (are the black helicopters gone yet?) I do have a reliable Internet connection now.  I’ll be staying here until tomorrow morning and hope to be home by the weekend.  Since we are driving that means I many not get connected again until I get home.

I have spent the last several hours reviewing the referrals to my www.pnnl.info site, doing an interview with a gun rights organization, and making terse comments on numerous gun forums and blog sites.  There are just so many that I can’t begin to keep up.  I am running a report generator on the log file but I expect it will take a several hours.  I’ll post an update here with a link to the report when it’s done.

I have enough donations now that I was able to pay off the previous visits to the lawyers.  More news on that front when it is appropriate to do so.

Thanks so much to everyone for all they work they put in.  I just don’t have enough time to thank everyone individually.  But some deserve special recognition–in particular “S” has been a huge help.  Ry of course has contributed time and ideas and offered to contribute a lot more work.  My daughter Xenia took care of the Quote of the Day for the last several days while I was going in and out of Internet connectivity.

All the bloggers that have linked and commented have contributed a great deal as well.  Michelle Malkin’s post in particular was a huge boost.

Here are some interesting things Ry has to say about what is going on:

Update: Here is the log report on referrals.  Lots of people talking about the PNNL Bigotry website.

Quote of the day–SA OBERFUHRER OF BAD TOLZ, GERMANY

Posted on by

The associations of the nation revival, SA [Storm Troopers], SS [para-military adjunct of the Gestapo], and Stahlhelm [a non-Nazi lunatic fringe para-military organization], give every responsible citizen the opportunity of campaigning with them.  Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named organization and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon . . . must be regarded as an enemy of the national government and will be brought to account without compunction and with the utmost severity.

SA OBERFUHRER OF BAD TOLZ, GERMANY
Quoted in Richard Munday
“The Monopoly of Power”
(paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, 1991)

The closet

Posted on by

I’ve posted about this in the past:

Some may ask, “So what do you think now?  Don’t you see that we can’t come out of the closet?  Look what happened to you!”

Yes, it’s risky.  Yes, if you stick your head up high enough it’s likely to get “wacked.”  But what’s the alternative?  If you won’t fight now when the worst they can do is get you fired (I have evidence a political opponent gave PNNL a tip about me–and I think I know who it was) then who among you will take a stand when they are going door-to-door taking your guns?  Or when they are rounding up the Jews/Christians/homosexuals/whoever?  Taking a stand now is far, far less risky and far more likely to succeed than if you wait until the thugs are knocking down your door.

Get out of the closet and do something today.  If nothing else support me as I fight the bigots who demand we stay in the closet.