“We can either live in a paranoid politically correct world frantically trying not to offend the Hitlers and Mohammeds, and blaming their victims when they kill, or we can be free men and women who have chosen to take the power to defend our rights into our own hands.

While a thousand organizations use the Holocaust as a platform for speeches about tolerance, Children Of Jewish Holocaust Survivors [Jews Can Shoot] is conducting firearms training… Freedom is not defended with empty idealism easily perverted into appeasement of evil, but with the force of arms.”

Daniel Greenfield / Sultan Knish blog

All too many of the other great tragedies of history - Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few - were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece... If a few hundred Jewish fighter in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Silveira v. Lockyer, 2003

Habah l'hargecha hashkem l'hargo -- "If someone is coming to kill you, rise against him and kill him first."

Commentary

Law Professor Rewrites The First, Second Amendment, Which Doesn’t Include Free Press Or The Right To Bear Arms

by Doris Wise Montrose on December 22, 2021

“Ah yes, I too have often wondered what the Constitution would look like if it were crafted to ram a hard-left agenda down our throats.”

A law professor argued in a Boston Globe op-ed that the First and Second Amendments should be rewritten to change how it defines the freedom of the press and the right to bear arms.

Mary Anne Franks, a professor at University of Miami School of Law and author of “The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech,” wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe arguing the Constitution has “competing interpretations” that “inspire religious-like fervor” leading to “irrational results.”

Franks’ book argued that the Constitution is “in the service of white male supremacy,” the Second Amendment is a “conservative fetish” and the First Amendment is a “liberal fetish” that “is less obvious but no less influential,” according to a description of the work written by Stanford University Press.

By Kendall Tietz

SCOTUS asked to accept New Jersey "Red Flag" gun case

Letter: The Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment

"All too many of the other great tragedies of history—Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. ... If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars." — Silveira v Lockyer, (9th Cir. 2003) (Kozinski, J. dissenting.)