Cutting Calves

So in this weeks Torah teaching Mishpatim, I learned a lot of things when I listened to this weeks Temple Talk radio show. This is probably no news to those more learned than I, and that probably doesn’t take much. But here’s what really struck me.

After the Ten Commandments are given, G-d asks one thing. That an alter be built for him out of earth. Because Adam rishon, Adam the first man, was made out of earth. The alter represents man, made of earth, because man was made of earth. And then it talks about the sacrifices of animals. Now here is where my thinking got a big wake up call. I’m human, human foibles, and faults there is no denying. I’ve never easily understood why innocent animals had to die because I made a mess of things. So the next part really was a light bulb for me.

Man had been making alters to G-d since Adam. Cain and Abel הֶבֶל ,קַיִןQayin, Heḇel. Noach נח also made an alter. All these people, and this is not the whole list, made alters to G-d before Mt. Sinai, הר סיני, Har Sinai. What G-d was saying after he gave them the commandments, and the instructions on how to live good lives in a community was not some new thing. The people had already been building alters and sacrificing animals. Not because G-d had told them to, but because it was their attempt to reach up to G-d, their attempts to reach out to him. And it pleased him and basically he was saying “That thing ya’ll do? Yeah, I like that, you’re reaching up to me. Keep on doin’ that”. WOW. I’ve read that so many times, so many times and I’ve never put that together! I need to hear someone kind of put the pieces in place for me. It was there all along, and I just never thought of it like that.

Now, hang on to the saddle horn, the calf is fixin’ to cut to the right.

Not only in the movie, but in the topic. But it all fits together like the horse and rider.

How did the horse know the calf was going to cut to the right? It is part training and part instinct. The horse is reading the calf. You thought the rider was simply using the reins? Look how loose they are. Now I will be honest, I like cutting, it is as much fun as it looks to be. But it’s not my first choice of sport. But oh yes, it is a LOT of fun. You use your legs, but your horse is your partner, and they certainly do read the calf. As well as using their G-d given, man honed instincts. What can interfere with that? A rider holding too tightly too the reins, not a loose enough relaxed body, a rider who wants to micro-manage. A situation of not using the things already there, just waiting to be utilized. Horse, rider, calf and instinct. The calf’s to go back to the herd, and the horse and riders to cut it away from the herd.

Now, hang on to the horn, the calf is fixin’ to cut to the left.

It is the same with us. IF we have the chance to have someone lay out things we knew, but in a different way.

I was blessed recently by being able to attend a class. A class on weapons of opportunity. Let’s say you are in a situation where you are disarmed by law, or a bad person. You have to go to the hospital, or a doctor’s office. Yes, you can carry concealed. But if you have to don a gown and go for an x-ray, you have a problem. Or any other situation you care to come up with where you are attacked. What do you have on hand you could use to defend yourself? Can you think of anything? You probably have your car keys, a credit card? A comb? You probably wish you had a Mayberry key, if you know what that is. Could you defend yourself with a can of peas? Do you have the instinct to see a potential threat? Are they honed, have you trained yourself what to look for? Do you know the things that can interfere with your instincts? What part does fear play in dealing with these situations? Fear is always bad, right? No.

Does spirituality enter into the equation?

I heard a story recently in this class. The teacher related going to the store with his kids, he was looking at kitchen implements, like for a spatula. He was standing there regarding the choices and his son commented, “Dad is figuring out how to kill someone with that spatula”. And he was. It’s not about killing, it’s about being aware. It’s about being aware that if you needed to, you would have things available you could use to defend yourself and others you care about, and how you would go about that. What would you do if a bad person was holding someone you cared about by the neck with a knife to their throat? Could you intervene? Would you?

Curious? GOOD! Stay tuned because I plan to shed some light on these questions and the person who teaches the class, along with a whole lot more about an amazing system of defense. If we can have a riot free weekend!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Your Call

I ran across a story talking about  women who use guns to defend themselves, it was written by a woman. She seemed to be no big fan of the notion. Her complaints are that women are at greater risk from former partners and spouses than they are strangers. She feels gun rights groups only get the “Stand Your Ground” laws passed by emphasizing “strangers lurking in bushes”, and that since most of the attacks against women are from known people this is a false argument. She quotes Mary Ann Franks, the anti-gun law professor who wants you to take her karate classes instead, if this give you any idea about the author. She says guns are the weapons of choice for batterers, so she wants women armed with what? Hairspray? The website the story is on has helpfully placed a related story on the sidebar about “12 Facts That Show How Guns Make Domestic Violence Even Deadlier”. I’m thinking this web site reeks.

She does however, rightly point out that women have gone to prison for defending themselves against a violent attacker. I did an interview with one many years ago. It was when the case for Castle Doctrine was being heard in several states. One of the legislators said if anyone had ever gone to prison for defending themselves with a gun it was an “anomaly”. I heard this story from attorney and author Kevin Jamison who said he informed the legislator he called them “people”. This story got me to thinking about a case I had read about a woman who had gone to jail for defending herself with a gun. I wondered if I could find her, by now the Internet had come along. For some reason I remembered her name, and with some help and passed on messages got in touch with her. I won’t republish the whole interview but heres the Sheila’s Notes version, like Cliff’s Notes, only provided free here.

This was a woman who had a profession that was all about saving lives and intervening in a medical crisis. She attracted a stalker without even knowing it. He stalked her for a while before she even met him. He would break into her house, move things, move things in her yard, and she raised dogs. He killed twenty-one of them, twenty-one innocent dogs killed because this ass-wipe wanted to scare her. And he did. She did all the right things, called the sheriff, reported everything. They would come out and take pictures and that would be the end of it. One day he left her a note telling her he was coming that night. She called the Sheriff’s Department to let them know, to ask for help. They said they would have two deputies right up the street, so when he came, they could arrest him, or remove him. The stalker came, the deputies didn’t. He forced his way into her home, she RETREATED, she RETREATED the length of her house, 60 feet I believe she said. She RETREATED to the last room in her house, the bedroom, where she had an old shotgun. He followed her, he followed her the whole length, and when he had her corned in her bedroom, he pulled a knife on her. She had followed all the rules, she had called the Sheriff, she asked for help ahead of time, for a year and a half this man had been terrorizing her without consequences, and now he threatened her life. She was all alone. She grabbed an old shotgun and took aim, the first round was a misfire. He LAUGHED at her and advanced, he said “What are you going to do? Shoot me?” She tried again, at first she didn’t think the second shell was going to fire, but it did. She thought she missed him, he turned around and left, going toward the end of the hall, where he knelt down, and dropped the knife. Then he continued on out of the house, with her following at a distance. She was telling him to lay down & curl up in a ball. He finally collapsed and she immediately called the Sheriff’s Department and THEN the deputies came.

From there it’s a tale of corruption, evidence disappeared, people that knew what was going on wouldn’t talk. Why? Oh, did I forget to mention the stalker was the sheriff’s nephew? Sorry, is that germane? She went to prison, for six years. Six long years for a woman who had dedicated her life to saving lives. The author of the story would say this is a failure of stand your ground laws, and that women having guns isn’t helpful because she went to jail. I think it is too, because she should never have gone to jail, though perhaps the sheriff that covered for his nephew should have.

We’ve heard of the Colorado Demoncratic state Senator Evie Hudak who told a rape victim, Amanda Collins:

that a gun would be useless in her defense because “statistics are not on your side, even if you had a gun.” Senator Hudak tells Ms. Collins in so many words that there is nothing a female can do during a rape except be a victim. She even states that martial arts are a useless pursuit as a women are likely to be overpowered anyway.

So there Mary Ann Franks, your class is always useless as well. Katie Pavlich wrote about the victim, Amanda Collins who had a concealed carry license when she was raped. She of course wasn’t carrying when it happened because she was in a “gun free zone” a campus. She was within 50 feet of the campus police department. She had left with a large group of people, and was a second degree black belt and was in a “safe zone” whatever the heck that means. She was raped.

At the hearing another Colorado Demoncrat, Rep. Joe Salazar’s helpfully commented about call boxes and rape whistles being sufficient self defense for women on campus, while another Demoncratic Rep. offered ballpoint pens should be used to defend against a attacker with a gun. The Colorado legislature passed four more gun control bills to disarm victims.

Amanda followed all the rules too.

So I was thinking about this story, and the women who have gone to jail for using a gun to defend themselves, legislators that condemn women to being defenseless victims, the media who lie regularly about self defense stories and writers who twist facts to suit their agenda and I’ve had a glorious idea. I had lunch with a good friend today and while we were talking she commented about someone having to walk a mile in someone else’s moccasins. BINGO.

I have an innovative plan to help sort these thorny issues out. For every legislator that wants to legislate women into defenselessness, for ever media moron, for ever prosecutor that dislikes guns and so goes after someone who uses one to defend herself, they get a minimum one hour virtual reality experience. At some point, they are taken to the best virtual reality technology center and given a one hour experience to allow them to experience what they have legislated others to, what they have presented to the public as truth, knowing it was a twisted lie. For ever celebrity that has sanctimoniously lectured how evil guns are while making money in action movies, virtual reality gets to slap them upside the head. Now if I was really evil? I would figure out a way to do it without them knowing they were dealing with virtual reality. Then the terror, the helplessness, the consequences really will have the impact on the elite decision makers and those that have paid protection. But that would be mean wouldn’t it? Almost as mean as telling women rape whistles, call boxes and telling your attacker you have a disease or are menstruating will keep you safe.

Pick one, your call.

The ever powerful pink pussy power hat

 

Taurus .38
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

When the truth won’t do

I’m working a theme this week.

Robin Brulé, “Member Of Everytown Survivor Network,” wants universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks. After all…

My mother is gone; others may be saved
My 75-year-old mother, Ruth, and her friend had been shot and killed. My mother had taken a trip to visit her friend who lived in a retirement community. They were drinking coffee and reading the newspaper when strangers robbed them and took their lives in a single instant.
[…]
the glaring loophole in New Mexico state law that allows criminals, domestic abusers and other dangerous people to obtain guns from unlicensed sellers with no background check, no questions asked. SB 48/HB 50 would close this deadly loophole by requiring a criminal background check for all gun sales.

No honest folks really want violent criminals walking around with guns (although one might also wonder what the violent criminals are doing on the loose in the first place, if they’re known). But Brulé fails to explain how universal PPYI checks would have stopped her mother’s murders. After all…

“Wright had no prior criminal record in Arizona…”
[…]
“Court records show Lauro was arrested on a second-degree burglary charge in 2013. The charge was dismissed in 2014.”

And…

Gothic said both men were subject to standard pre-employment procedures, drug screenings, and E-Verify, “which exceeds legal and industry practices.” The company said they are cooperating fully with law enforcement in the ongoing investigation

So, Brulé, how would your background checks stop a couple of guys, apparently with no disqualifying convictions, from purchasing a firearm? From anyone, including an FFL who has to go through NICS?

Another question: Given that, in Haynes, the Supreme Court has rulled that felons cannot be forced to self-incriminate on firearms charges, how do victim disarmers propose to force disqualified persons to comply with PPYI? Your police state dream law would only apply to honest people. You know, the ones who aren’t the problem.

Third question: Even if SCOTUS suddenly decided to toss the Fifth Amendment, how do you victim-disarming whackos propose to preemptively stop strawman purchases?

When victim-disarming ban bunnies start suggesting laws that don’t infringe on honest people’s right, and do apply to the real criminal predators, I might stop regarding them as liars or idiots. Or both.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Raise Up For Us Wise Judges

16 ויקם יהוה שפטים ויושיעום מיד שסיהם׃ 17 וגם אל שפטיהם לא שמעו כי זנו אחרי אלהים אחרים וישתחוו להם סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר הלכו אבותם לשמע מצות יהוה לא עשו כן׃ 18 וכי הקים יהוה להם שפטים והיה יהוה עם השפט והושיעם מיד איביהם כל ימי השופט כי ינחם יהוה מנאקתם מפני לחציהם ודחקיהם׃ ~~ Shoftim 2:16-18

16 Then the Lord raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them. 17 Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed down to them. They soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the Lord, and they did not do so. 18 Whenever the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them.~~Judges 2:16-18

Judges have been in the news a lot lately. For instance the hearing on Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

Several of the same senators who helped unanimously confirm Gorsuch to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2006 are now railing against his nomination by President Trump to the highest court in the land.

But I suppose it really didn’t matter who President Trump picked, the Demoncrats planned to protest and showed up with pre-printed signs to do so. But as is pointed out, since they didn’t know WHO he was going to nominate, the just left the spot for the name blank and filled it in with a magic marker.

Well, that certainly sends a clear message you are standing firmly on principle!

Then we have the left wing courts in Israel that resulted in Jewish families being thrown from their homes, for the second time, because of questionable evidence from a left-wing group based on questionable laws. Or questionable patchwork of laws perhaps.

Then you could have your life ruined by the ruling of a left-wing court like Elor Azariya.

If ever there has been a time our countries could use some wise judges, now would be good. For some reason, people think it is fine now to riot, destroy personal property and physically attack people in the name of “peaceful protest”. I saw a meme on Facebook that said “Love Trumping Hate involves a lot more arson and assault than I expected”.

For some reason, groups of people, large groups of people, have reckoned it is safe for them to do these sorts of things. It’s fine for them to block roads, attack people and vehicles with no consequences. Well, not to them anyway. The people they attack, they aren’t so much worried about. It’s bad enough that some states and proposing legislation that basically, says if you accidentally kill a protester you will not be prosecuted.

But these protesters only want what’s best for humanity, the environment and think President Trump will ruin the world and they care so much about every living being?

Horse feathers.

Yet another mob of around 200 people blocked another ambulance necessitating the EMS crew to perform in the field a procedure that is normally done in the hospital. The police attempted to move the leader off the road so the ambulance could get through. He refused. The comments under the article are interesting, some commenting that in certain cities the Judges would let him off without even a fine. Have you seen some of the videos of masses of people swelling up onto freeways? They don’t care what kind of wrecks they create when people try to avoid hitting them. They don’t care about the people their actions may kill. I can see why different states are talking about such laws. Police have been told to stand down by ideological politicians and Judges have not followed the law.

Being a Judge is a big responsibility. You have the lives of innocent people in your hands. Ruth Bader Gargoyle (as someone I know calls her) has demonstrated more than once that she has no desire to follow the Constitution, and has shown poor judgment more than once. She also doesn’t keep her word. She is still on the court and hasn’t left the country.

The we have the Judge who halted the travel ban from seven countries that are known for creating terrorists. The Judge it seems, either lied, or was ignorant of facts, and history too, one might add. Robart said there had been no terrorist attacks, there have been 78.

And as Rush Limbaugh points out, despite what people think about Robart,

And remember Judge Robart is not a Republican. He’s a Republican-appointed judge, but he is a left-wing judicial activist actually chosen by Patty Murray, the senator.

Yes, sad to say, the safety of innocent people rests on decisions made by such as these. Todd Starnes makes the point Judges need extreme vetting.

They seem to think that anyone not on the left is a threat. And I’m sure their judicial opinions would be based on this false logic. For instance, could you imagine being a conservative, or a concealed carry person coming before this “Judge”. It’s not photoshop, I promise.

Impartial Judge or lack of judgment?

Travis County (Texas) Judge Sarah Eckhardt started her session on January 24 by putting on the pink knitted “pussy” hat. Yeah, boy howdy, nothing says I’m going to be a fair impartial judge and do my job like starting out your court session by putting on a pink “pussy” power hat.

Some Judges to actually try to use some sense when they hear cases. Remember the story I brought you about Cox and Kettler involving the sound suppressors in Kansas? Well, that case has been heard.

The sentence handed down by U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten still leaves intact the federal felony convictions against Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler, both of Chanute, Kansas. Cox, 45, was given two years of supervised probation, and Kettler, 28, got one year of supervised probation.

Well, yeah, goodie and all that, but the law said:

The Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, which passed in 2013, says firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept within the borders of Kansas are exempt from federal gun control laws.

Marten told the two men that while state law is not available to them as a defense, it is a factor he can take into account at their sentencing.

“I am satisfied you both had a good faith belief that you are protected by that statute,” Marten said.

So, WHY Judge, didn’t it mean what it said? That’s what Cox did. Made items for residents of Kansas.

Who is on the Supreme Court will matter for a longgggg time. Liberals will hate anyone that is not going to view the tattered Constitution as a “living breathing document” so they can kill it. There will be Second Amendment cases come before the court, there will be civil rights cases come before the court. Who would you rather see on the court, a Judge such as Neil Gorsuch or Sarah “Pussy hat” Eckhardt?

Next time Judges are up for election in your state, perhaps check with your local grassroots Second Amendment Rights group, see if they have recommendations. And seriously, who wants to show up in court with a joke like Sarah Eckhardt? If I were the defendant I’d be thinking that would be cause for a re-trial right there. But, I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

And now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. They have ruled politics and ideology are more important that legal precedence and American lives.

I wonder who we could ask if they think there is a likelihood of terrorists coming in with refugees? Oh, how about Bashar Al-Assad of Syria? The whole column is here.

If you are familiar with Mark Levin he’s a lawyer with a top radio show, and here’s his take on the 9th Circuits decision.

 

In two minutes, A Time Lapse of Terror from the 1980s to November 2015. Good job 9th Circuit, I’m sure our odds are fine, no worries, nothing to see here, move along.

Please G-d, raise up for us wise Judges!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Fakes Quotes, courtesy of victim disarmers and the lying media

Liars lie. More große Lüge.

List of reasons people got shot last month makes grim reading
Parents Against Gun Violence summarised news reports as if they had been written in the first person voice, to underline how pointless these reasons are for death or serious injury.

“Quote:” A guest at my son’s New Year’s Eve party got drunk and wouldn’t leave, so I shot him dead.

Reality: There was a fight. The aggressor refused to leave, and was shot in self-defense. The defender was not charged.

“Quote:” Some guy dinged my door in a parking lot and we started arguing about it. We both had guns, so I shot him first.

Reality: “Victim” dinged a guy’s car, and they did get into an argument. “Victim” tried to draw a gun, so defender drew his and fired. Judge threw out the case, and the defender was released.

“Quote:” I accidentally ran over a dog with my car. The guy who owned the dog was really mad about it and was yelling at me, so I shot him dead.

Reality: Self defense; no charges filed.

“Parents Against Violence” — or “Parents Against Gun Violence”?* This brilliant example of große Lüge urinalism gives both versions of the group name — is pulling the standard trick of intermingling criminal use of firearms with justified self defense. They want you to equate defense with murder. All the better to manipulate the ill-informed into supporting “sensible gun laws.”

We have facts. They have disingenuous fake “quotes.”

But look which Metro published.


Edited to add footnote.
* While there is a “Parents Against Violence,” that is an Alabama-based group that doesn’t seem to be related to this. This list of “quotes” appears to have been lifted from the Facebook page of “Parents Against Gun Violence.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

große Lüge

The Big Lie. Gen Xers and later may not know the term, but some of us grew up knowing a little history.

A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Hitler falsely claimed the technique was used by Jews to blame Germany’s loss in World War I on German general Erich Ludendorff, who was a prominent nationalist and antisemitic political leader in the Weimar Republic.”

So. Make a lie so big that the gullible will assume no one could make that up, and repeat it so often that it works its way into thought processes and becomes the “truth.” While Hitler accused Jews of using the technique, his accusation was itself the epitome of the big lie.

I’ve found, though, that the große Lüge has another effect that… works even on those who question everything: Sheer frickin’ exhaustion and frustration.

I am the editor of the weekly TZP alert newsletter. The bulk of the news letter is a collation of RKBA-related news (and other items that I think will interest our readers). I scour media sources of various slants for news good and bad. I try to find stuff that never makes it onto your television screen.

I make a special effort to include material about what victim disarmers are up to. “Know your enemy” stuff.

große Lüge stuff, it turns out.

  • 90% of Americans want this gun control
  • Assault rifles are the favored weapon of criminals
  • Assault rifles are the same thing as assault weapons
  • 5.56 NATO is an incredibly high-powered “bullet”
  • Background checks would have stopped the Sandy Hook massacre
  • Guns are designed to be loud so you know to run
  • Guns aren’t loud enough to damage hearing
  • The TEC-9 is a submachine gun
  • Guns kill more people than car accidents
  • And the recent favorite lie that Congress eliminated background checks (the Social Security rule)

…and on and on and on, over and over and over…

The problem is, those long since debunked lies keep going like the zombie apocalypse. They annoy me. At one time, I hoped that by writing to “authorized journalists” I could potentially educate the merely ignorant, and put the ones deliberately distorting facts on notice that we know what they’re up to. But I can’t keep up. The lies spread like whack-a-mole with hydras instead of obnoxious little mammals.

So I rarely bother with that angle any longer. More usually, I’ll respond by penning a sarcastic post that blares the offender’s stupidity to the world. Or as much as might be paying attention to little ol’ me.

That’s mildly satisfying. For about thirty seconds. Until I see the next repeat of the same bloody große Lüge. So it has gotten to the point that I’ll be halfway through another piece…

…and give it up. Because the große Lüge will just pop up in another media hole anyway.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

But HOW could this happen?

I thought it might be interesting to take a look back at gun control through Jewish history, so I did so for a research paper a couple of years ago, but I think it is all still relevant.

I often hear people say “Oh, but why did this happen?” I think we should look at the question of how things like this can happen, by examining the role of the victim disarmament laws in place during the time period.

As Dave Kopel points out in his paper To Your Tents Oh Israel i weapon control dates way back for a conquered people. From I Samuel 13:19-22: Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, “Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears.” But every one of the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, or his sickle, and the charge was two-thirds of a shekel for the plowshares and for the mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening the axes and for setting the goads. So on the day of the battle there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people with Saul and Jonathan, but Saul and Jonathan his son had them. Mr. Kopel points out that governments must control people’s ability to access weapons by also preventing them from making them. Therefore, there were no Israeli smiths.

Whenever Jews lived with Muslims, they lived as dhimmis. This meant they would be facing many restrictions of common rights. First they had to pay jizya, which is a tax any non-Muslim will have to pay to be allowed to live among the Muslims. In addition to that, the Jews living amongst the Muslims were forbidden to testify in court cases if the case involved a Muslim, nor were they allowed to bear arms.ii These restrictions enabled many attacks against the helpless Jews to succeed.

The May Laws in Russia carried many restrictions for the Jews. In some of the areas where pogroms took place some of the Jews attempted for form self-defense groups, but they would be disarmed by the government who appeared to have been involved in instigating some of the pogroms. Firearm registration for all was introduced on April 1, 1918, and in October of 1918 all firearms, ammunition and sabers were ordered to be turned in. The exception was Communists were allowed to keep their weapons. Pogroms in Russia occurred 1881-1884, 1903-1906 and 1917-1921 with each wave of pogrom being increasingly violent towards Jews.iii

Nazi Germany is the easy to use to illustrate how restrictive gun laws can be used to control a population or discriminate against or eradicate a segment of it’s citizens. The Nazi government kept good records. In 1928 the Weimer Republic enacted the “Laws on Firearms and Ammunition”. These laws stated that a person had to have a government permit to do each of the following: one to own or sell a firearms, one to carry firearms (including handguns), one to manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and a separate one to buy ammunition. Then the government decided who got them based on it’s decision if a person was “trustworthy” enough and if they could demonstrate what the government decided was a good need. This would be the 1928 German version of what is advocated by some in America currently as “Universal Background Checks”. If at some point the government decided they didn’t want someone to have a weapon or ammunition, they simply didn’t renew the permit. In September 1935 the “Nuremberg Laws” were enacted and the Jews lost their civil rights. On March 18th 1938 the “Nazi Weapons Law” was enacted. No Jew was allowed to own or work in a business involving firearms. Kristallnacht occurred on November 10th, 1938. On November 11, 1938 the Nazi Weapons Laws was broadened and no Jew was allowed to own a weapon, any weapon, not just a gun. Since the permitting system had been in place for some time the Nazi government knew who had what weapons, they were marked with serial numbers and where they could be found. This ensured that the Jews, who by now were not considered citizens of Germany could do little to resist the coming attacks.

An interesting note is that America’s “Gun Control Act of 1968” was based on the “Nazi Weapons Laws”. Senator Thomas Dodd was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials and brought back a copy of the Nazi Weapons Laws. He had it translated by the Library of Congress. He then pushed for similar legislation in the “Gun Control Act of 1968”, which was signed into legislation.iv

The results of these type of laws are made very clear as by the end of our class observance of Yom HaShoah and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising will both have occurred.

Some of the Jews trapped in the Warsaw ghetto formed defensive bands and attempted to fight back. They realized they would not succeed for long, but they fought for their honor, and for the chance that some of them might make it out alive. The Yad Vashem web site has interviews with the survivors of the uprising and they talk about the pitifully small amount of weaponry they had available and their lack of training or experience. But they wanted that chance, that chance to live.v

The British attempted to keep the Jews disarmed in the forming state of Israel

On more than one occasion the British soldiers retaliated against the Irgun by rioting and attacking Jews and Jewish owned businesses. The British also turned a blind eye to Arab guerillas sneaking into Israel, or even knowingly armed them by supplying arms to TransJordan. Indeed there is a long history of attacks upon Jews in their homeland by both Arabs and British. These attacks were either ignored by the British or they made attempts to cover them up, as in the Hebron massacre. Even after the Hebron massacre the British refused to allow the Jews to arm themselves for protection. vi

Israel would seem to be a country that would understand the need for a armed populace. They have not been that way to the extent it might be thought. On July 31, 2013 Public Security Minister MK Yitzchak Aharonovitch called for tighter restrictions on firearm ownership.vii A little over a year later after the massacre at a Jerusalem Synagogue he called for relaxing controls.viii

Moshe Feiglin former MK, also called for easing restrictions on firearm ownership for citizens. His sentiments were expressed with the statement “The answer

is that the State of Israel is not increasing our liberties; it is reducing them. Dictatorship confiscate citizens’ weapons. ‘The State alone will take care of all your security needs’.”ixIsrael does have soldiers throughout the country that ride public transport with their weapons. There has still been many attacks on unarmed citizens in Synagogues, streets, and shops when one was not close enough to stop the attack before casualties resulted.

Europe has seen a rise in antisemitism over the last few years. In 2014 the Metropolitan Police have recorded a 120% increase in antisemitic crimes, but hate crimes are generally under reported. A Human Rights Watch article reported “the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency found that three quarters of respondents living in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden, and the UK felt antisemitism had increased in the country where they lived over the previous five years.”x Both Europe and the United Kingdom have very restrictive firearms laws, and yet attacks appear to be increasing on the defenseless as evidenced by the above statistics.

The divide between the church and the synagogue, that certainly played into the role of the attacks on Jews in Russia, the Spanish Inquisition, Germany and the Muslim countries. In those instances there were attempts to force them to convert to either Christianity or Islam as an alternative to torture and death. In the case of Germany, conversion was not an option as the Nuremberg laws defined who was or was not a Jew. Conversion was not offered or relevant, it was based on heritage. In this case, the church played a role

in terms of helping the Nazis and spreading antisemitic thought. The recent attacks do not appear to be related to the divide between the church and synagogue, but are based solely on hatred of Jews, because they are Jews. But throughout time and country one thing has remained the same. The laws in place restricted Jews from being able to carry out the Torah commands of self-defense such as Exodus 22:2-3 and defense of others Leviticus 19:16. Finally there is the law of pikuach nefesh. In the case of saving a human life, it trumps all others. It’s hard to obey G-d’s law when you are prevented by man’s, to paraphrase Rabbi Dovid Bendory.xi

i(Kopel, 2007)

ii(Wikipedia, Muslim and Arab Antisemitism)

iii(Isseroff, 2009) (Kopel, 1995)

iv(Simkin and Zelman, 1993)

v(Ochayon, Undated)

vi(Hollander, 2009) (Jewish Virtual Library) (Lapidot, 1999)

vii(Ya’ar, 2013)

viii(Dvorin, 2014)

ix(Gold, 2015)

x(Leghtas, 2015)

xi(Bendory, 2009)

Kopel,D (April, 2007). To Your Tents Oh Israel! Retrieved 15 April, 2015 from http://davekopel.com/Religion/To-your-tents-o-israel.pdf

Wikipedia. Persecution of Jews, Muslim and Arab Antisemitism. Retrieved 15 April, 2015 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews

Jewish Virtual Library (2013). CHMIELNICKI (Khmelnitski), BOGDAN. Retrieved 20 April, 2015 from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_04259.html

Kopel,D (24 March, 1995). Lethal Laws. Retrieved 20, April 2015 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1272846

Issaroff,A. (2009). Zionism and Israel – Encyclopedic Dictionary: Pogrom Retrieved 21 April, 2015 from http://zionism-israel.com/dic/pogrom.htm

Zelman,A. And Simkin,J. Gun Control-Gateway To Tyranny (1993). Jews For The Preservation of Firearm Ownership Publishers, p. 1-14.

Wikipedia. Kristallnacht Retrieved 15 April, 2015 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

Ochayon,S. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Retrieved 20 April, 2015 from http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/education/newsletter/30/warsaw_ghetto_uprising.asp

Yad Vashem. Fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto. Retrieved 20 April, 2015 from http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/warsaw_ghetto_testimonies/fighters.asp

Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Defense Organizations: The Role of Jewish Defense Organizations in Palestine. Retrieved 20 April, 2015 from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/defense.html

Lapidot,Y. Chapters in the History of the Irgun. Retrieved 22 April, 2015 from http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac03.htm

Hollander,R. Anti-Jewish Violence in Pre-State Palestine/1929 Massacres (23 August, 2009) Retrieved 15 April, 2015 from http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1691

Ya’ar,C. Israel To Consider Stricter Gun Control Laws. (31 July 2013) Retrieved 15 April, 2015 from http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/170453#.VToMABdVFX8

Dvorin,T. Aharonovich to Ease Restrictions on Weapons Permits (18 November, 2014) Retrieved 15 April, 2015 from http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/187597#.VToMxBdVFX8

Feiglin,M. Citizens Carrying Firearms Prevent Terror. (22 January, 2015) Retrieved 25 January, 2015 from http://jewishleadership.blogspot.com/2015/01/mk-moshe-feiglin-citizens-carrying.html

Leghtas, I. In 2015, Anti-Semitism Should No Longer Be a Reality in Europe (18 February, 2015) Retrieved 20 April, 2015 from http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/02/18/2015-anti-semitism-should-no-longer-be-reality-europe

Bendory,D. Man’s Law Kills Again – The Sin of Gun Free Zones. (12 November, 2009) Retrieved 20 April, 2015 from http://www.ammoland.com/2009/11/mans-law-kills-again-the-sin-of-gun-free-zones/#axzz3YDa9BUi8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Intent

LSU art student Jordan Marcell speaks of the “intent” in the creation of firearms. A lot.

Opinion: Guns dangerous by nature, effects not containable
“Even when not performing their purpose, the ever present danger with firearms, is that— somehow— they will.”

Too much, and yet still misses two points.

Let’s start with that intent. Marcell claims to believe that firearms are simply built to be deadly destroyers of biological life, and that this is a continuing and progressive trend towards ever more deadly weapons. If that were true, there would be no handguns produced, as long guns can project bigger, faster, more damaging rounds than could — effectively — any handgun. If simple killing were the goal, I’d stick to a AR-15 pattern rifle and a vest full of 30 round magazines, and junk the compact polymer pistol in wimpy 9mm which I do carry everyday.

I don’t carry that handgun to kill. I carry it to defend myself (and others, should the circumstances warrant). My handgun was not designed by Ruger to be the penultimate killing machine. It’s designed to be carried routinely and comfortably and to provide basic protection.

Or take this little number.

Does anyone seriously believe that was designed for anything other than punching holes in paper? One could use it to kill, but so could such a determined person bash in his victim’s skull with Marcell’s coffee mug.

Next, consider Marcell’s fear that all firearms will perform the deadly purpose mistakenly attributed to the inanimate gadgets.

According the CDC, in 2015, 36,252 people died by firearm; that includes homicide and legal intervention (such as self-defense) and accidents. We’ll pretend each death was accomplished with a separate firearm: 36,252 guns.

Conservative estimates of firearms in civilian hands in America range from the wildly implausible 265 million to a more likely 500 million, to a possibly over the top 750 million.

If you studied math, rather than Marcell’s “Studio Art” you probably see where I’m going with this.

36,252 firearms were seemingly used in accordance with the “intent” Marcell believes imbued their design. Out of 265-750 million firearms. If Marcell were correct then — conservatively — 99.98632% of firearms suffered gross design failures: 264,963,748 guns failed to kill anyone (as they are allegedly designed to do).

You’d think that if 60-130 million gun owners (estimates vary as wildly as estimates of firearms) thought their guns had malfunctioned, there would be a monumental class action lawsuit wending its way through the courts. As some anonymous Internet wag noted, “If guns kill people, where are mine hiding the bodies?”

Or, just maybe, those inevitable deadly effects are “containable,” because of the intent of the owners.

There is no “intent” conferred upon firearms. As always, intent resides in the person operating it. Yes, even in negligent or accidental discharges, some had the intent to do something — likely stupid — with the gun.

So Marcell missed two points. Did you notice a third point which he implied?

“A firearm, as a tool, is an instrument that was created with the purpose of eliminating biological life— or killing, if you prefer that term.”

“Killing.” He fails to distinguish between murder and self defense. Or to differentiate between murder and hunting for food. Or murder and putting down a terminally suffering animal. Even in “killing” intent varies. Unless one is a liberal arts student incapable of more than simplistic over-generalizations bearing no resemblance to reality.

If Marcell equates all killing to murder, I wonder what our young student eats. Surely not meat, yet…

And you who feed on nothing but plants
Don’t hold your pride so high
For plants are living, and just might feel
And they take so long to die.
– Fisher’s Chant, Leslie Fish

Does Marcell heartlessly murder suffering plants for sustenance?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail