Pro-Gun Group Defends Holocaust Imagery In Privacy Dispute

The rhetoric surrounding a gun-owners' privacy measure in Illinois got even more heated in recent days, as a pro-gun advocate defended the use of Holocaust imagery in making his case.

John Boch is the president of Guns Save Life, a Champaign, Ill.-based gun group that publishes the monthly newsletter GunNews. The April 2011 issue featured a striking graphic on its front cover (shown above): "Armed," it reads, over a picture of the Israeli flag with a rifle overlaid on it, "people fly their colors."

Next to that image, a photo of the yellow star that Jews in Europe were forced to wear during Nazi rule, with the text: "Disarmed, victims wear them."

The image was attached to a bold headline reading "MADIGAN'S LIST," an apparent reference to the film "Schindler's List," and a slight at a recent decision by the state's Attorney General.

In March of this year, Attorney General Lisa Madigan ruled on a Freedom of Information Act request made by the Associated Press. In order to own a gun in Illinois, any resident must apply for and receive a Firearm Owner's Identification Card (FOID). The AP wanted a list of all FOID card holders in the state.

Madigan's office ruled that the public had a legitimate interest in the list, and that the AP could have it. The decision chagrined many gun-rights groups, including Guns Save Life.

"[T]he slippery slope for the Jews in Germany began first with their identification, then disarmament then annihilation," the newsletter reads. "Under Attorney General Madigan’s plan, Illinois gun owners will be identified publicly and will stand on the precipice of their own slippery slope towards ends unknown."

But State Senator Ira Silverstein was one among many who felt that GunNews went too far. Silverstein is Jewish, and his district covers suburban Skokie, Illinois, which has such a high concentration of Holocaust survivors that a new museum devoted to the tragedy was recently opened there.

Silverstein spoke to the Chicago Sun-Times about the newsletter last week:

“This is a poor analogy, a very poor analogy,” said Silverstein... “It brings back horrible memories. To compare this to Lisa Madigan is totally absurd.

“It offended not only me but a lot of Jewish individuals and non-Jewish individuals who know the history of the Holocaust. [This group] should think before they print these things,” he said.

Silverstein had asked Boch to apologize for the remarks. But in an interview with FOX Chicago, he had a curt reply to that request.

"Hell, no," Boch said. “The mantra is supposed to be never forget and never again, not stick your head in the sand and whine like a little girl when you see Holocaust imagery."

He also claimed the support of the group Jews for Preservation of Firearm Ownership. Bernard Schoenburg of the State Journal-Register spoke to the interim director of that little-known group, Bob Meier, who said he is a Lutheran.

Comments

[montestruc]

08:43 PM on 04/27/2011

In what rational way is it "inappropriate" to draw an analogy between the nazi oppression and murder of Jews?

It is a historical fact that Nazis enacted laws that disarmed all of their later victims. It is also a historical fact that genocides committed by governments against their own people have uniformly been on disarmed populations.

Why is stating this offensive?

[SMBrown2]

10:47 PM on 04/26/2011

I sympathize with their goal, but holocaust and nazi references just get people riled up. Look at all the fools in Wisconsin with the Scott Walker = Hitler signs. Its the same thing here. Neither side should be playing these games.

[raggedsoldier]

11:33 PM on 04/26/2011

Does "Guns Save Life"'s tasteless, cynical appropriation of the Holocaust in the advancement of its agenda trouble you, or the fact that it "gets people riled up", and thus undermines that agenda?

[David Carson]

01:11 AM on 04/27/2011

RS--if you are fussing about something being tasteless--I know we are doing something right

[montestruc]

07:45 PM on 04/27/2011

Why cynical? Because the author appeals to the self-interest of potential victims to be able to defend themselves.

[greeneyes51654m]

09:50 PM on 04/26/2011

A very strong message indeed.

[stonewalker]

08:05 PM on 04/26/2011

Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership has a documentary that backs up what this newsletter says. Please watch it and decide for yourself.
"No Guns for Jews"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H-qOUmCrIU

[montestruc]

05:00 PM on 04/26/2011

The author implies by referencing the interim director's religion, and calling JFPO "little known" that it is some how fraudulent. I say let the reader judge for himself.

http://jpfo.org/

[DreamWeaver2nd]

04:55 PM on 04/26/2011

Ratcheting up fearful scenarios is what the gun lobby does to sell guns. The melodramas will be coming at us fast and furious (they have the money for advertisement-stories).

The gun lobby is aware that Americans have finally grown tired of gun violence in our nation, and the downright ridiculousness of false "justifications" for lethal weapon ownership without what we really need for protection: sensible and reasonable gun laws.

It's time the USA joins the rest of the industrialized world and takes public safety as our right.

[stonewalker]

07:12 PM on 04/26/2011

The various gun lobbying organizations do use fear in their newsletters, but the intention isn't to get people to buy more guns, it's to get people to donate more to those organizations. National Association of Gun Rights is the worst, NRA isn't far behind but at least they get things done in Washington.

Oh, and public safety is not a right, nor is it the government's fault when somebody commits a crime.

[stonewalker]

07:22 PM on 04/26/2011

^^ that is my honest assessment of gun lobby fundraising. I don't have any way to prove it, just my opinion.

[David Carson]

01:31 PM on 04/27/2011

DW--ratcheting up the fear is what civilian disarmament activists like you practice all the time

[hawhite2000]

03:27 PM on 04/26/2011

How is your gun license different from a drivers license? They're not!

Since your drivers license, car title, home title, etc are public records, they are not as private as you think, of course all information associated with these records are not readily available and accessible by everyone.

[stonewalker]

03:38 PM on 04/26/2011

Licensure of a right is unacceptable in the first place. Driving is not a right. Very few states have a gun licensure scheme.

[hawhite2000]

03:51 PM on 04/26/2011

I guess no one should have birth certificates or certificates of live birth by that logic.

No one is taking your gun.

Driving is not a right but owning property is. Owning a car and owning a gun are the same. Shooting and Driving are different since in using your property you have the potential to cause great harm since both of these items, guns and cars, are weapons, and weapons require responsible operators.

[montestruc]

06:49 PM on 04/26/2011

People's contact information is not "public". Name a state that allows everyone to look up anyone else's driver's license including address, DL number, photo and so on.

[hawhite2000]

12:20 PM on 04/27/2011

I never said that all the information was public, but you can find out if someone has a license, and minimal non personal information. The same is true with this request.

[LibertyOverTyranny]

02:36 PM on 04/26/2011

Aaron S. Zelman was Founder and former Executive Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership died four months ago. He was Jewish. The current Interim Executive Director is not, but, like Zelman did, he loves liberty and adamantly opposes Nazis and other control freaks that push the tyranny of victim disarmament on the world. JPFO is not racist in restricting membership exclusively to Jews, but was founded by Jews who recognized the importance of an armed populace as a check on government tyranny and genocide. Zelman was saddened and frustrated that many people (and in particular many other Jews) did not understand this. He had shown that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968. Hitler signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The Gestapo enforced it. For nearly 20 years, the JPFO have been presenting the official German text of the Nazi Weapons Law and a side-by-side translation into English. Even more deadly is a side-by-side, section-by-section comparison of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968 with the Nazi Weapons Law. The two are uncanny in their parallels. The NRA refuses to "go there." That is in large part why the JPFO was formed by Zelman. Gun control is always the linchpin for any fascist police state tyranny. "Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Never forget." Are these just empty words? Please, wake up.

[antonymous]

04:03 PM on 04/26/2011

I'm going to read back those first three sentences before I comment, so I don't make a mistake and end up looking stupid.
.

Yep, there it is. "The current Interim Executive Director [of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership] is not [Jewish]."

So the Jewish leader died, and they couldn't find another Jewish member of an allegedly Jewish organization to replace him? Sounds to me a lot like "Jews for S-r-h P-l-n" and its one member.

Now what does that tell you about your argument?

[PavePusher]

06:25 PM on 04/26/2011

It says that you lack imagination and empathy.

Cease and desist your efforts at being vile.

[montestruc]

07:04 PM on 04/26/2011

To destroy "gun control" and to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone. Those are the twin goals of Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Founded by Jews and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all.

JPFO is a non-profit tax-exempt educational civil rights organization, not a lobby. JPFO's products and programs reach out to as many segments of the American people as possible, using bold tactics without compromise on fundamental principles. For example, JPFO offers easy-reading, comic-style, fully-documented "Gran'pa Jack" booklets that explain:

the entire Bill of Rights, its roots, its meaning, and how it is being trampled today
the racist roots of "gun control" in America
the United Nations assault on the U.S. Bill of Rights,,

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/about.htm

[westreal]

02:09 PM on 04/26/2011

Just plain tacky. Nothing else left to say about that.

[WolfWytch]

12:51 PM on 04/26/2011

Just wondering why suddenly (and anytime they want to brandish a weapon) the Right-wing thinks they have a Constitutional right to privacy over their guns, but women don't with regards to our bodies. Seems to me, that these male repubs have all this privacy, otherwise I don't see why a FOA request would be so insulting to them.

It seems I have to get a gun in order to have the right to privacy.

[David Carson]

01:18 PM on 04/26/2011

you are misinformed if you think the proRKBA folks are radical abortion opponents

[stonewalker]

01:38 PM on 04/26/2011

Brandishing a weapon is illegal. Nobody wants to brandish a weapon. Also, you are trying to conglomerate a very large, very disparate group of people into a single group-think mind.

That being said, you pose a legitimate question. If a right-wing conservative principally values the constitution then they must do so in regards to everything that it protects. Does it protect abortion? That's a debate I keep my head completely out of.

[phapnui]

11:44 AM on 04/26/2011

Dishonorable and despicable all who are involved.

[antonymous]

11:15 AM on 04/26/2011

First of all, tasteless. Goes without saying. It's completely unbelievable how far the (mainly Christian) far-right is allowed to go in appropriating Jewish symbolism and culture (see also S-r-h P-l-n's inexplicable Star of David).

Second, it's inaccurate. Heard of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? They fought bravely, but in the end they couldn't outgun the German military. In addition, on the Eastern front the non-Russian minorities of the USSR (Ukrainians, Belorussians, Lithuanians) were often organized into paramilitary groups and encouraged to do much of the dirty work themselves. There's your armed citizenry. (Of course, they all said they were fighting the Russians/Communists, but they never did explain how killing Jews fit into the picture.)

[legaleagle 45]

11:48 AM on 04/26/2011

"The French Resistance was a key element in the succes of the D-Day landings. General Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote after the War, "Throughout France the Resistance had been of inestimable value in the campaign. Without their great assistance the liberation of France would have consumed a much longer time and meant greater losses to ourselves.""

[antonymous]

11:59 AM on 04/26/2011

You're citing the combination of the French Resistance, which had a large overseas military component, and the Allied forces' invasion of France. That's two free countries and a large part of the military and citizenry of the third, with sympathetic action on the Eastern and Italian fronts.

By contrast, the Jews of Germany were surrounded by ethnic Germans, stateless, and so discriminated against that no country but the Dominican Republic would even accept refugees, let alone launch military action in support of the Jews.

Again, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising is instructive: there was a valiant fight and support from a few of the local Poles, but in the end it collapsed because it didn't receive any outside help and didn't have the resources or popular support to succeed on its own.

[DreamWeaver2nd]

05:04 PM on 04/26/2011

antonymous: I've enjoyed reading your informative comments here. Thank you.

[legaleagle 45]

10:48 AM on 04/26/2011

Are you referring to that group of democratic Indiana legislators who fled Indiana for Champaign County, Illinois to prevent a the Indiana legislature from enacting budget cuts? I think they left already.

[David Carson]

01:20 PM on 04/26/2011

guff--you are going to need proof that the proRKBA folks are racist other than your disdain for the 2nd amendment

[stonewalker]

02:19 PM on 04/26/2011

His antagonistic comments are becoming easier to spot these days.

[Acert]

01:28 AM on 04/26/2011

If defeating the Nazis was as simple as using personal firearms, Hitler's would not have succeeded in Blitzkrieging all over most of the armies of Europe.

[Berettasskeeter]

08:32 AM on 04/26/2011

Of course it is not that simple, but if you look around the world, you'll find that dictators do NOT allow their people to own firearms legally. Further, if you look at WWII, you will find instances of people using small arms in guerilla action, successfully, against the Germans. And, the Warsaw Ghetto resistance is the analogy being used against Madigan. While I may not believe Madigan is any Gestapo-analogue, the facts remain that if people are singled out for ANY legal behaviors that some may not like, they are then endangere.
Semper fi

[Acert]

10:22 AM on 04/26/2011

"You'll find that dictators do NOT allow their people to own firearms legally."

The same is true of many NON-dictators.

[greeneyes51654m]

10:10 PM on 04/26/2011

Fanned.

[barry444]

01:08 AM on 04/26/2011

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Don Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.

http://www.newsweek.com/1993/11/14/are-we-a-nation-of-cowards.html

[pkafin]

03:51 AM on 04/26/2011

Depends on how you spin the numbers does it not? 2,000 to 3,000 killed criminals sounds like a good thing until you consider that there are 12,000 to 13,000 gun related homicides per year in the US; another 17,000+ per year firearm related suicides on top of that. Then that 2 to 3 thousand deaths falls to less than 10% of gun related deaths per year.

I can relate to the idea that unfettered gun ownership is a sign that the govt. is not planning to storm your house. But, in an age of wiretaps without warrants, detention without trial, and increased monitoring of bank deposits, the govt. has plenty of other ways to keep it's citizens defanged.

[stonewalker]

11:12 AM on 04/26/2011

Are you comparing the number of criminals killed in self-defense with a firearm vs the number of homicides committed with a firearm? Would you rather there be more criminals killed? The vast majority of gunshot wounds are not lethal, and on top of that the vast majority of crimes that are prevented with a firearm are done so without firing a shot. I posted this earlier, but I'll post it again because I think it bears repeating -

The CDC did a study to discover how often guns are used in the US in self-defen­se. This study focused only on home-invas­ions.
"Estimatin­­g intruder-r­­elated firearm retrievals in U.S. households­­, 1994." They found that in a 12 month period "...497,64­­6 incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm"

So 12,000-15,000 homicides committed annually vs almost 500,000 home invasions prevented annually (without firing a shot). And that doesn't even take into account crimes prevented outside homes. Looks like firearm ownership is a good thing.

Again, this is not research done by a conservative or pro-gun think-tank. It's the CDC.

[greeneyes51654m]

11:06 PM on 04/26/2011

Fanned.

[L1011]

11:59 AM on 04/26/2011

Where are the bodies of all of the dead criminals?--there are only approximately 200 justiable homicides with a firearm every year according to the FBI (not some biased pro-gun "researcher").

[PavePusher]

01:06 PM on 04/26/2011

One does not need to kill a criminal in order to accomplish a succesful defense. Your assumption is absurd.

[Old Jarhead]

06:45 PM on 04/26/2011

Law enforcement only showed 406 justified homicides in 2009. Private citizens showed 261 for 2009. Law enforcement had only 145 more annually than private citizens, and they actively engage criminals. So, what's your point?