Posted on 05/04/2007 2:03:52 AM PDT by goldstategop
The other day, a friend of mine asked me why I thought those on the left hate guns so much. My initial reaction was to acknowledge that I have a tough time getting a handle on anything liberals say or think or do. It all seems wacky to me.
What’s more, I have no idea who compiles their playbook, although we are quite aware that they have one. It’s where they get all their talking points. For instance, we know that liberals favor affirmative action, although at the same time we also know they like to say that where race is concerned, they’re the ones who are colorblind. They also endorse bilingual education for Latinos even though it’s a handicap that the youngsters have a tough time overcoming, and may explain why such a depressingly small percent of them hang around high school long enough to graduate.
We know that leftists oppose capital punishment although I, for one, have never heard a compelling argument why a person who takes one or more lives in cold blood should be spared the ultimate punishment.
Furthermore, liberals seem to believe that same-sex marriages, abortions on demand, separation of church and state, not to mention open borders, are all covered somewhere in the U.S. Constitution. But if we’re going to be honest, one can see why liberals, who are far more prone than conservatives to forsake logic for emotion, would feel as they do about some of these issues.
As I say, I don’t know who makes their decisions. But it hardly matters if it’s a committee consisting of Bill Clinton, James Carville, Howard Dean, Chris Matthews, Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, Charles Rangel, Barbara Boxer, Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore and Bozo the Clown, who set the agenda or it’s simply the editorial board of the New York Times. The thing is, they’re in perfect agreement that if only they got to make and enforce all the rules, this would be a far better world.
But why are those on the left so vehemently opposed to decent, law-abiding citizens owning guns? After all, most people -- unlike Hollywood celebrities -- can not afford to surround themselves with armed bodyguards. And as dedicated as the police may be to protect and serve, they’re usually not around at the very moment your life is being threatened. Besides, if liberals had their way and the Second Amendment was repealed, the only people in America with guns would be cops, criminals and the military. Interestingly, of those particular groups, criminals are the ones liberals hate the least.
Frankly, having given it some thought, I believe the reason that the Left hates guns so much is because of us Jews. With very few exceptions, we are terribly squeamish around firearms. The fear is totally irrational. It’s not just that we think someone will shoot us with our own gats, but that the guns, themselves, are anti-Semites, and will kill us of their own accord.
Sadly, it’s more than that. They also fear those Americans whom they most closely associate with gun ownership; namely, southern Christians.
Even though America is the most tolerant nation on earth, Jews tend to think if terrible things happened to their ancestors in 15th century Spain and 19th century Russia and 20th century Nazi Germany, it can and will happen here. It’s a form of paranoia. But it’s a very strange form. For as we all know, this is a nation of 300 million. So, wouldn’t you think a minority numbering a mere five million, and in constant fear of pogroms, would spend as much time as possible on the firing range?
Even among the lower middle classes in the NE, this mentality is palpable, and often mixed with a little racism ie "we must control those animals with their guns."
In short, it is the urban bourgeois mentality that causes my Jewish friends and neighbors to embrace gun control more than anything else.
In my case the Israeli pal I made in 1972 and with whose reserve tank unit I hooked up with during the 1973 war invited me to dinner with an elderly gent the next time I passed through Haifa, a couple of years later. The old fella was a veteran of the Israeli 1948 War for Independence and the 1956 Sinai fight as well; he still had the burns from losing everyone in his halftrack to a mine- if the front wheels had of tagged it the two up front would have bought it but it was a track in back that hit it so he and the driver were the only two who survived.
He also had the little serial number tattoo on his arm as an outside permanent reminder of that which he wasn't going to forget anyway. Though the Israeli government subsidized the removal of such tatoos he wasn't too worried about it. He'd come to Israel as a teenager and was in the worst fight of his life within ten days of arriving in the country, and he learned that though he might be killed he had a new home where he could at least fight back.
And though it wasn't his most important job anymore, at his front door stood a loaded 9mm Egyptian copy of the Swedish K submachinegun, leaning in a corner pointing muzzle-down with it's stock open along with a shoulder bag with a half-dozen extra ready 36-round magazines hanging off it. Out his second-floor balcony window was a swell view of the back courtyard and playground of the local elementary school, and it was only a couple of years after the massacre of some two dozen Israeli schoolkids and the wounding of around 60 others at the Netiv Meir elementary school in Ma'alot in northern Israel. It was not going to happen at the school outside his balcony, not while he was there.
And if people who'd promised to throw him into the sea came to do so or put him in another camp again, they'd have to come up his apartrment building's stairway to do so. And that was where he'd discuss it with them, with the Instrument of Negotiation he'd taken in '56 from a dead Egyptian NCO who would have no use for any of the things of this world ever again.
He was a nice, sweet old guy, and I wonder if he's still alive. If he is, he's not at all a person to fool with, however, and not a person who can be murdered easily. And ever since then, I've been a machalnik and
I think it’s self-selecting: Those Jews who like guns go to Israel, and the remainder — here in America — are the gun haters.
Nicely put! And when not just a few but most are prepared to confront and defeat evil, it will skulk away to try again later, or find an easier target.
The Holocaust Museum in Dallas is a “Gun Free Zone”. Good luck with that.
I have to agree. My theory is that white ethnics over here never fully acculturated. Rather they saturated the melting pot.
I find it curious that he and George Will, who both work for WaPo, are useless regarding the Second Amendment.
I believe the latest example was a DA in North Carolina called Nifong. The Innocence Project has exonerated and freed 200 convicts with DNA exculpatory evidence, IIRC. I'm not saying all of these prosecutors are evil, but there have been quite a few cases of prosecutors deliberately witholding exculpatory evidence.
In fairness, I don't believe that all prosecutors are ravenously, dangerously political animals whose only concern is their "win rate". I'm sure the majority are good men and women who want to protect society from the animals that they regularly prosecute. That said, I hear stories about prosecutors clearly prosecuting innocent people far too many times to be comfortable sentencing people to death.
>I can’t even imagine the determination a camp survivor would have.<
That was shown to Americans when the VT professor barricaded the door while the students ran to escape.
You know what they say about opinions.
While I'm a supporter of the death penalty, I believe it should only be handed out in certain situations, where there's absolutely NO doubt of the murder's guilt. Examples include John Wayne Gayce, Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz, Jeffery Dahmer, etc...
If there's even the slightest possibility of innocence, the death penalty should not be given.
I used to do some work for a legal group here in KC called Public Interest Litigation Clinic, and just one of their "successes" is the release of Joseph Amrine, who was accused of the stabbing death of another prisoner while in jail. The only witnesses against him were other prisoners, one of whom was the actual murderer, the others who later admitted that they lied while on the stand. However, even when they admitted that they had lied, the prosecution stated that since they were convicted criminals, their assertion that they lied wasn't enough to give Amrine another trial - Interesting how their testimony WAS enough to convict him of a capital crime, though. The ugliest part of it was when the prosecution admitted that while he may have been innocent of the crime, he did receive a fair trial, and therefore still needed to be executed. At one time, he was only a few hours from being executed. The appeals court disagreed, and he was granted a new trial and eventually released. Here's a bit of what PILC had to say on the matter:
Joseph Amrine was convicted and sentenced to death solely on the testimony of jailhouse informants who have admitted that their bought-and-paid-for testimony against Amrine was false. The most reliable eye-witness, Corrections Officer John Noble, implicates Amrine's very first accuser, Terry Russell, in Barber's death. Only hours before Barber was stabbed, Russell was released from disciplinary confinement imposed for attacking Barber scarcely a week earlier. New evidence establishes that without question, Amrine is innocent. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc observed that "[t]he strength of Amrine's showing at this point raises the real possibility that his case may be an example of the 'extremely rare' scenario for which the actual innocence exception is intended." 128 F.3d at 1228. Nevertheless, the Missouri Attorney General continues to press for Amrine's execution, using legal technicalities to prevent him from obtaining a new trial.
From the moment that he was accused, Amrine has denied involvement in the stabbing of fellow inmate Gary Barber. Against Amrine's steadfast claim of innocence, supported by the only law enforcement officer witness to Barber's stabbing and a plausible alibi defense, the state has only the self-serving and disavowed testimony of inmates Randall Ferguson, Jerry Poe and Terry Russell, given in exchange for their safety and freedom. If the state had to prove its case against Amrine on the evidence now available, it could not do so. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals observed, "If the trial testimony of Poe, Ferguson, and Russell were not credited, there would appear to be no evidence implicating Amrine in Barber's murder." Amrine v. Bowersox, 128 F.3d 1222, 1228-29. (8th Cir. 1997)(en banc). The trial prosecutor, Tom Brown, admitted that without the three inmates who now admit they committed perjury at trial, "we would not have had a case," and charges would have to be dismissed. or the court would have had to direct a verdict of acquittal.
Mark
I am a “gun person”, and my eldest brother was not. He voted a straight Democrat ticket, and I vote for the most conservative individual I am able to find.
My younger brother eschewed politics totally and seemed to enjoy his time on the range while serving in the Army; never firing a weapon thereafter. He said they held no interest for him. He loved Soccer. I dont get that at all.
My RC neighbor always refuses to visit the range with me, although I still invite him to be polite.
Gee. You think ALL Catholics are anti gun? Or is anyone, anywhere ALL anything? The correct answer is: Nobody knows.
Except maybe the Shadow.(Not the Alec Baldwin one)
Great story about the 3rd Army WWII vet .44mag plinking Rabbi.
I think this writer has a view and then shaped his writing to fit that view with no facts attached.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.