Publicola

This is from a story in The Washington Times about the dissent of 6 judges in the recent 9th Circuit decision to deny hearing en banc a challenge to the california assault weapons ban.


"Mathew Nosanchuk, a leading opponent of individual gun ownership, said the dissenters' "individual policy preferences dressed up as a legal opinion" have no legal basis and thought it would be unlikely the Supreme Court would take such a case.
'I'm Jewish. I find [Judge Kozinski´s reasoning] very offensive, and it does history a discredit,' said Mr. Nosanchuk, litigation director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. 'In these times we defend ourselves with freedom of expression and a free press. The idea that we have to be armed to fend off another Warsaw Ghetto uprising is completely contorted."

Mathew Nosanchuk is the Litigation Director & Legislative Counsel for the Violence Policy Center, a very anti-gun organization. He apperently is not a student of history. Or perhaps he is actually on the opposing side of things.

Lemme point this out for ya:
"'I'm Jewish. I find [Judge Kozinski´s reasoning] very offensive, and it does history a discredit...The idea that we have to be armed to fend off another Warsaw Ghetto uprising is completely contorted."

He's Jewish. He doesn't want to do history any dis-service. He doesn't think we need arms to fend off another Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

The people who were trying to fend off the first Warsaw Ghetto Uprising were Nazi's!!!!!!! The Jews were the ones who initiated the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, unfortunately too late to do much real good, except take some of the bastards with them.
So if we take his words at face value, he's arguing against gun ownership being necessary to put down another Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. That would mean he assumes that guns won't be necessary to contain the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto until their turn comes to ride the cattle cars into the death camps. It would also mean that he is taking the side of the Nazi's, but merely arguing that guns won't be necessary to accomplish their ends.

Of course, what is more probable is that Mr. Nosanchuk is not familiar enough with the history of the Holocaust, especially the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943, to keep from tripping over his own words.

Of course his main point about arms not being necessary for defense against tyranny is equally flawed, but pointing out that freedom of expression & a free press can't stop a platoon of stormtoopers like accurate fire can would probably be too much for him to take.