Let the Guns Flow Into America

gun controlWhat we suspected but did not know in 2001 was clear from the start this time in Orlando. There could be no mistake. Cries of “Allahu Akbar” are one clue; the man calling and claiming ties to ISIS is another. His trips to fulfill the Haj, a third. This was an act of Islamic extremism targeting not only those who are different from the way they are sexually, but religiously, culturally, nationalistically. That simple. Kill infidels. The victims were gay…this time. Last time, they were Jews from Tel Aviv; before that, they were Parisians, Belgians. It doesn’t really matter. After all, these extremists are blowing up people in Istanbul and Baghdad with as much hatred as they are murdering others all over the world.

Like other attacks, Obama has turned this into an issue of guns. He’s been pushing this issue very hard and has made it clear – he’s all for taking guns away from people – but apparently the people he wants to take guns from may well be the very people who need them the most.

As someone who lives very close to Jerusalem, someone who works in Jerusalem almost daily, let me tell you what happens when there is a terror attack here. First, there is the shock, the shouting, the running of innocent people trying to get away, trying to save others as well. And, there are also people running TO the attack. It’s a commentary and a touch of humor that Israelis have fought back against armed terrorists with chairs, umbrellas, even a selfie stick. But mostly, Israelis fight back with guns.

Months ago, ISIS released a video in Hebrew in which they promised to come and stab and murder Israelis. Almost immediately, ordinary Israelis began taping their own video response. Many were along the lines of – feel free to try…you with your knives, us with our M16s. Bring it on!

No, Israelis don’t want war, we don’t want constant attacks. We want peace with a thirst few people can imagine, a desperation that all too often leads us to make reckless and dangerous compromises with those who do not believe in compromise and so see our efforts not as a love of peace but as weakness.

But Israels are strong, stronger than you can imagine. And one proof of that strength is that we recognize that guns don’t kill people; murderers and terrorists do that. Guns are merely a tool – for the good and for the bad; for the attack and for the defense.

In Israel, guns save lives, guns stop attackers before they can harm others. In Jerusalem, within seconds of an attack, guns are drawn and our trained security forces AND trained civilian population go into action. By contrast, in Tel Aviv, the reaction time is slower. I heard at least one person speak of the gun they left at home. Recently, my husband and I stole a weekend away. He had his gun with him as we took a leisurely Sabbath afternoon stroll in a pleasant, quiet village.

One of the residents told him he doesn’t need a gun there and asked why he brought it. A gun is a thing of great obligation and the safest place is either locked away, or on the person trained to use it. Jerusalem’s mayor was both praised and ridiculed for calling on civilians (trained and licensed civilians) to carry their guns with them at all times. His wise call has proven itself over and over again in the last few months.

The attack in Orlando happened in a “gun-free” zone which would, by its very definition, only be violated by someone who didn’t respect the law…the very people against whom an unarmed population needs defense.

If indeed the vast majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens, they have the right to bear arms but more, we live in a time when those who do not respect our laws seek our innocent and abuse the open society we in the western world cherish.

I have long suspected that given enough time and freedom, Obama could well destroy the fabric of the quilted society that is the United States. Luckily for all, he will not have the time and still he moves towards this goal. Do not surrender your guns, America. There are evil people who loathe the world you have created within your borders.

Someone posted to Facebook that blaming the guns for the Orlando massacre would be equivalent to blaming the planes for bringing down the World Trade Center towers or the Zyklon gas for the deaths of millions of Jews during World War II. Planes, guns, gas, knives, bombs…these are not what kill people. It is the hands, the minds, and the hearts of extremists; people who cherish hatred and worship death. In this case, it was Islamic extremism. On September 11, it was Islamic extremism. In the streets of Paris and London, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Orlando, Islamic extremism. Terrorism.

Blaming guns may be politically correct. It is also fundamentally stupid. Open your eyes, America. See the threat. Stop it. And here’s a lesson from Israel – you’ll need those guns to accomplish this. Stop disarming the population; stop blaming the guns that would have saved lives in Orlando as they have saved lives in Israel. No, it wouldn’t have stopped 9/11, but the vast majority of recent attacks both here in Israel and around the world were or might have been stopped sooner if the world recognized that we are engaged in a battle to the death with terrorism and the theology that drives them – their deaths…or ours.

17 thoughts on “Let the Guns Flow Into America”

  1. Jim from Iowa

    I would hope Americans are asking themselves who among us needs to own an assault rifle like the AR-15 semi-automatic/automatic weapon used in the mass shooting in Orlando. Law enforcement and military need such weapons. The general public does not.

    1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

      Jim, with due respect, you do not know what you are talking about.

      First, by definition, an assault rifle (unlike the meaningless term assault weapon) is a select fire weapon, capable of both semi-automatic and automatic operation. The shooter in Orlando did not use a semi-automatic/automatic weapon. He used a standard AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle, period, no different from most hunting rifles except for cosmetics and the fact that if fires smaller caliber less powerful ammunition.

      It is against federal law to own or possess a select fire weapon, or any other weapon capable of automatic fire, without a very expensive federal license, and has been for decades. And in most states, they are unlawful to own or possess even with the license.

      One can debate the public’s need for these semi-automatic AR-15 rifles, but they are among the most popular rifles today, and plenty of law abiding citizens use them for hunting (although they need to use a larger caliber for deer and large game), recreation, and most importantly, for self defense.

      Your fundamental mistake about the terms you so casually throw around casts doubt on your policy recommendations.

    2. It is the Bill of RIGHTS not needs. Every single adult American should own at least one semi-automatic rifles and use them on a regular basis

      1. Jim from Iowa

        Who says it is a constitutional right for any American to own an AR-15 assault rifle? Our society has a collective right to impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership among its citizenry to promote domestic tranquility. That is also a right we have under the provisions of the American constitution.

        1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

          Who says it isn’t a Constitutional right for an American to own an AR-15?

          Frankly, Jim, these posts are not up to your usual careful standards. It is obvious that you have done no homework before making several legal and factual mistakes, and stating them with absolute certainty.

          First, it is disappointing to see you repeat the common misconception that the AR-15, a semi-automatic weapon, is an assault rifle. Please learn what the AR-15 is, what an assault rifle (as opposed to the meaningless term “assault weapon”) is, and the difference between automatic and semi-automatic operation.

          Second, the domestic tranquility argument is pure hogwash. First, tell me how much domestic tranquility was fostered by the gun bans in Chicago, Baltimore and D.C.

          But more important, can you point to a single case where the Supreme Court has cited the preamble’s domestic tranquility clause to justify a restriction on rights recognized by the Bill of Rights? I’m certainly not aware of any.

          If the preamble’s reference to domestic tranquility can justify a restriction on rights under the second amendment, it could be just as easily be invoked to impose a single religious opinion or a single political opinion, abolish the right to petition the government, or do away with trial by jury. Who is to say those acts would not also promote domestic tranquility?

          Any lawyer will tell you that the preamble is merely background. Any exercise of power (in this case the police power) must be of an enumerated power given to the Congress by Article 1 or to the President by Article 2, limited in either case by the Bill of Rights.

          Please, find out what you are talking about before stating it as fact.

          1. Thank you Mr. Know-It-All. Obviously, any gun law restricting the purchase of any class of guns would be tested as to its constitutionality within our judicial system. I certainly can live with that. What is objectionable is the ability of the National Rifle Association to make the Republicans kowtow to their will without a meaningful public debate and the passage of bi-partisan legislation on any gun control effort.

            1. It hasn’t been done.

              Sorry but your pathetic attempts to restrict rights are not legal. What part of “shall not be infringe” means that it can be infringed? Please explain.

              So now you wish to take away the First as well as Second Amendments to the Constitution. Ever hear “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Or don’t members of the NRA have the right to petition government either?

              What other rights to you seek to suppress? You are as bad as those people that rail against AIPAC for petitioning the government and for the exact same reason. You oppose people you disagree with from exercising their rights enumerated by the Constitution.

            2. ahad_ha_amoratsim

              So anyone who points out that you don’t know what you’re talking about is a know it all? OK, got it. Then I won’t point out that you also have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to the NRA.

        2. The Second Amendment – ever hear of it? “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. What part about that is not understandable?

          No society does not have any rights period. Only individuals have rights. The Second Amendment refutes that claim.

          1. So you’re saying the Second Amendment bars any local, state or federal authority from denying any American the right to purchase any firearm that that individual wants to purchase? Insane people? Violent ex-felons released from prison? People placed on a “no-fly” list? Terrorists?

            1. Felons are no longer citizens and non-citizens have no rights.

              As for the rest not only would the 2nd Amendment be null and void, but 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment, 8th Amendment, and 14th Amendments would be violated as well.

              Why not just tear up the entire Constitution and rule by fiat at that point? Where is the rule of law? Just because a few individuals break the law you would punish 330 million people? Really?

  2. Respectfully, I have to disagree! In Israel many people do have guns, but there are many strict gun laws that apply as to who can have a gun licence, where they are registered as living, the type of weapons, even the number of bullets. The frightening thing about the U.S. is the ease with which they can amass weapons. The U.S. is NOT ISRAEL. While Israelis regard guns as a necessity in times of almost daily attacks on civilians by zombified, hate-filled enemies, Americans view it as more of an entitlement. That is, in Israel it’s about at least some people in a situation of a terror attack having guns, but therefore having responsibity to assist in stopping and containing the attack. In the US it’s more about the individual having the entitled right to a gun. Completely different outlook. In other words, there is a big difference between Israel and the U.S. in what the guns are used for. Just look at the statistics of armed crime in the U.S. vs Israel. Also, in Israel people have guns in addition to well established armed security networks. The people who deploy guns during terrorist acts, work to support the armed security guards. Increasing guns in the U.S. without the structured security network would be a free for all disaster. Yes, Obama’s statement is asinine, when he couples it with statements such as “this has nothing to do with Islam”, but gun laws do play a large part in saving lives. Imagine if each of those stabbers had an automatic or semi-automatic weapon instead of a knife – how many dead would there be before the terrorist was “neutralised”?

    1. It is an entitlement in the US – the Bill of Rights enumerate the restrictions upon the GOVERNMENT. One of those enumerated restrictions is that the right of the people to “keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

      1. Precisely why the benefits of gun ownership in Israel can not be applied to the U.S.. It’s a completely different outlook. In Israel it’s not every individual’s inalienable right, more a privilege, and therefore many people who carry arms, take on the responsibility to help protect the community. Also, I’m not knowledgeable in U.S. constitution, or the specific legal cases, or the the options to government or congress re gun control, but I would assume provisions can be made to control the type of weapons and the availability of ammunition (an Amendment to the Bill of Rights from 1791 would not have referred to automatic or semi-automatic weapons).

        1. I quoted the exact term “arms”. No there are no provisions for any restrictions of types or ammunition. Semi-automatic rifles existed at the time,

          Thomas Jefferson owned a Girandoni air rifle. It fired 20 rounds in about 10 seconds and took that long to reload. It armed the Holy Roman Empire and Austrian Empire Armies from 1780 onward. He also sold government owned cannons to private individuals to be used to attack British and other shipping

  3. Norman_In_New_York

    The very strict gun laws of France did not stop a massacre in Paris by firearms much worse than Orlando. Instead of more gun controls, we need more Muslim controls, starting with the Jihadist-In-Chief in the White House.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top