Comparing America to Israel on gun laws is dishonest – and revealing

The Times of Israel ^ | March 1, 2018 | HAVIV RETTIG GUR

[piytar]

There’s more. Once they are granted the right to carry a gun, Israelis are limited to just 50 bullets in their possession at any given time. They must shoot or return old bullets before they can buy new ones, a process that can only take place at tightly regulated shooting ranges where each bullet’s sale is carefully registered. The types of guns permitted also depend on the reason for the license – i.e., a veterinarian may only purchase a gun approved by the government for the killing of animals, a hunter’s license only permits the purchase of a firearm from an approved firearms list kept by the Parks Authority, and so forth.

In other words, as the Public Security Ministry explains on its website, Israeli law “does not recognize a right to bear arms, and anyone wanting to do so must meet a number of requirements, including a justified need to carry a firearm.” There is no inkling of a belief among Israelis that citizens should be permitted to own guns as a check on government power — that is, as a limit to the sovereignty of the state expressed in its monopoly on violence.

[Cobra64]

Bullet? I’ve been shooting for over 60 years and never bought a “bullet” until about 15 years ago.

[cowboyusa]

Are you saying Jews should stay out of America, and that Israel controls America? Clarify please. If yes, get right with GOD.

[Cobra64]

Nope. Just projectiles. They launch the bullet via a pea-shooter.

[Cen-Tejas]

............yes, or maybe another way to frame it.........”it’s just power for power’s sake”........

[KarlInOhio]

There is no inkling of a belief among Israelis that citizens should be permitted to own guns as a check on government power — that is, as a limit to the sovereignty of the state expressed in its monopoly on violence.

Luckily for them, governments ruling over Jews have never misused that monopoly on violence against them. < /Oy! It's sarcasm>

[Navy Patriot]

I advocate equal treatment under the law, any Gun Controlling Traitor to the Constitution can stay out of the Constitutional Representational Republic of The United States of America in person and influence.

The Subject of the thread was Gun Controlling Jews.

[sauropod]

.

[Graybeard58]

Because I’ve seen pictures of all the Jewish settlers always carrying machine pistols
strapped to their backs, I assumed that was standard operating procedure. Evidently
I was wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Evidently we were both wrong.

[Hiddigeigei]

Israel has a fairly large Islamic population that are given equal rights theoretically.

[piytar]

Thing is if they want to do harm, they will ignore the laws/rules angd get guns. The law abiding are left defenseless. That’s why we see things like this horror.

[Paul R.]

In my area, the 300 HAMAS might shoot up the concert, but if our cops sent out an appeal for help over the emergency notifications (cell phone) network, the deer (etc.) hunters would nail the terrorists as they tried to escape.

[Texas Fossil]

I’ve been reloading since I was a child. I’m 75.

It is a lot better if you can control what you roll into your ammo. Most weapons have a sweet spot to tune in.

[scott7278]

Correct - it identifies what government cannot do; our rights do not come from the Constitution, but are already ours by virtue of existing.

[BDParrish]

"Actually, to avoid giving the commies a chance to pervert the term's meaning..."

This is a problem with all forms of law. There is no way to use mere words to stop a tyrant. As far as "taking action" is concerned, good people will always wait until it is too late. They cannot act until it is absolutely necessary, right?

The federal constitution, being a contract between the states who created the federal government, and their creature the federal government, is a limited powers document, severely limiting what the federal government is allowed to do.

Yours is an idealistic view of the Constitution and anachronistic, I am very sorry to say.

Here are my definitions as a historian:
"Well-regulated" - The problem with a militia is the hodgepodge of obsolete weapons they show up with as irregulars. The founders believed that the noble citizenry, the people, would keep themselves armed with the latest weapons if just left alone.
"Militia" - The founders wrote a lot about standing armies. They considered the threat very real. The monopoly of force that is claimed by law enforcement today runs directly counter to this conviction. No-knock warrants, civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, and worst of all the Supreme Court ruling that law enforcement has no duty to protect the citizenry, all features of standing armies, all combine to create the very situation that the founders believed they had prevented with the 2nd ammendment.
"The right of the people" - We simply do not live in a Christian country any more. There are still some in the Baptist church who will quote Romans 13 to mean you must submit to tyranny, which is not true. When we say "with right and conscience" we are saying God is with us while defying the tyranny of King George, Justin Trudeau, and Gavin Newsome, just to name a few.