web analytics
July 24, 2016 / 18 Tammuz, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

Most Americans, but not Obama, Say US at War with Radical Islam

Saturday, December 5th, 2015

American opinion and President Barack Obama are finding themselves on different planets when it comes to fighting the Islamic State (ISIS), according to latest opinion polls.

President Obama faces sharp criticism, even from leading liberal Democrats, after the ISIS massacres in Paris last month.

One poll this week showed that 60% of Americans think the United States is at war against radical Islamic terror, a term that the President never uses. Another recent survey revealed that only 23 percent think he has a real plan to fight ISIS.

After the Paris attacks, President Obama spoke to the nation to calm fears, expressed his sympathy for the victims, his solidarity with France, offered his sympathies to France and relied on non-specific statement, such as:

We’re going to do whatever it takes to work with the French people and with nations around the world to bring these terrorists to justice, and to go after any terrorist networks that go after our people.

His credibility sank when he told the Paris climate conference the following week that talking about global warming is an “act of defiance.”

It took two days after last week’s murders in San Bernardino before the President could suggest they “may” have been connected with terror despite evidence at the time that the attackers were Muslims, were armed to the teeth and there were links between them and radical Islam.

President Obama on Saturday, in his weekly address, finally called the massacre an “act of terror” but used it to promote his fight for gun control as a way to stop terror.

He said:

We know that the killers in San Bernardino used military-style assault weapons — weapons of war — to kill as many people as they could. It’s another tragic reminder that here in America it’s way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun….

If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun.

And so I’m calling on Congress to close this loophole, now. We may not be able to prevent every tragedy, but — at a bare minimum — we shouldn’t be making it so easy for potential terrorists or criminals to get their hands on a gun that they could use against Americans.

More revealing of his view on the war against terror are several recent comments:

We cannot respond from fear.

They’re [ISIS] a bunch of killers with good social media.

Destroying ISIL is not only a realistic goal.

The resulting opinion of Americans is loud and clear.

Even before the attack in San Bernardino attacks and one day before the Paris massacres, a Gallup poll showed that only 23 percent believe he has a credible plan to defeat ISIS.

A new Rasmussen Reports national revealed:

60% of Likely U.S. voters believe the United States is at war with radical Islamic terrorism. Just 24% share the president’s position and disagree. Sixteen percent   are undecided.

Even 56% of Democrats believe America is at war with radical Islamic terrorism, a view shared by 70% of Republicans and 54% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

A staggering 92% of all voters now regard radical Islamic terrorism as a serious threat to the United States.

 

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Obama Thinks San Bernardino Shootings MAY be Terrorism

Thursday, December 3rd, 2015

U.S. President Barack Obama gave a press conference on Thursday morning, Dec. 3, about the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California which took place the day before.

The President, after having been briefed by numerous security officials, ventured to say that the assault might have been an act of terrorism, or it might just be workplace related. He also said that no one yet knows the motivations of the two perpetrators who murdered 14 people and critically wounded more than a dozen others.

“At this stage we do not yet know why this terrible event occurred,” he said during a nationally televised press briefing. “We don’t know at this point the extent of their plans … or their motivations.”

“It is possible that this is terrorist related but we don’t know,” Obama added. “It is also possible that it was workplace related.”

The President also took the opportunity to once again call on the country to take “basic steps” to make it harder for people to gain access to weapons.

“We see the prevalence of these kinds of mass shooting in this country, and I think so many Americans sometimes feel as if there is nothing we can do,” Obama said.

“We can’t just leave it to our professionals to deal with the problem of these kinds of horrible killings — we all have a part to play. And I do think that as the investigation moves forward, it’s going to be important for all of us — including the legislatures — to see what we can do to make sure that when individuals decide that they want to do somebody harm, we’re making it a little harder for them to do it because right now it’s just too easy.”

The Associated Press, citing the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said two of the weapons — two assault rifles and two handguns — were purchased by someone who is now under investigation.

The shooters, identified as Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, a U.S. citizen whose family is from Pakistan, and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, 27, were both killed in the shootout with police following the mass shooting on Wednesday.

In a statement the President made shortly after he learned about the shootings, he repeated a message he previously uttered in Paris on Monday, just two weeks after the horrific Nov.13 massacres in Paris. Yesterday, Obama said, “The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world.

Responding to a question about a shooting at Planned Parenthood after his talk at the international Climate Change Conference on Monday, the President responded that mass shootings “just doesn’t happen in other countries.”

The people who were sprayed with bullets in Parisian cafes and at the Bataclan theater on Nov. 13 – at least the ones who survived – were probably surprised to hear that, let alone the folks in many South American and Middle Eastern countries such as oh, Syria.

Farook worked in the building where the San Bernadino shootings took place, and he was even at the Christmas party shortly before he began blowing away his colleagues – some of whom had thrown him and his wife/accomplice a baby shower earlier this year.

The number of guns and ammunition and the body armor and explosive devices used in the mass shooting could not possibly have been set up in the short amount of time it took for Farook to leave the party and return with guns blazing. A workplace incident? Hard to see that. Terrorism? Not so hard.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Every Jew a .22 [audio]

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2015

In the wake of the daily terror attacks facing the Jewish state, the laws of gun control are changing in Israel. Nonetheless, the majority of Jews living outside of Israel believe in stricter gun control and do not own weapons themselves.

After the unparalleled history of oppression and murder suffered by the Jewish people, wouldn’t it make sense that out of all people, Jews would see the importance of bearing arms?

In this episode we look at the gun issue through a Biblical prism and explain why bearing arms in these times is not merely a privilege, but a responsibility.

Ari Abramowitz & Jeremy Gimpel

Ahead of the Republican Field, Carson Claims Jewish Support on ‘Gun Control and the Holocaust’

Sunday, October 25th, 2015

(JNi.media) Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Republican presidential candidate, retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, many in the Jewish community have supported his point of view linking the Nazi gun control efforts and the ease with which they were able to round up Jews. After the October 1, 2015 mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, Carson said Hitler would not have attained his goals as easily if the Jews were armed. “There’s a reason these dictatorial people take the guns first,” Carson said, and caught much flak for it.

“Some people will try to take that and, you know, make it into an anti-Jewish thing, which is foolishness,” Carson said, adding that many in the Jewish community have told him he was exactly right.

Carson, who said he would “love” to see abortion becoming illegal nationwide with few exceptions, with the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, told NBC’s Chuck Todd: “I’m a reasonable person and if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I’ll listen.”

He did concede possibly allowing abortions to preserve the life of the mother, saying, “That’s an extraordinarily rare situation, but if in that very rare situation it occurred, I believe there’s room to discuss that.”

Carson is leading the Republican field in recent polling. A Friday Des Moines Regisiter/Bloomberg poll shows him with a nine-point lead in Iowa. A Quinnipiac University poll Thursday gives him an eight point lead over Donald Trump in Iowa.

Alluding to the hatchet job much of the media, as well as his chief rival in the race, billionaire Donald Trump, have done on him, Carson said: “As people get to know me, they know that I’m not a hateful, pathological person like some people try to make me out to be. And that will be self-evident. So I don’t really worry about that.”

As to the attack from Trump saying he has “super low energy,” Carson said, “I’m not sure that there’s anybody else running who has spent 18 or 20 hours intently operating on somebody.”

JNi.Media

Ben Carson’s Defenders Say Comment on Holocaust and Jewish Guns Has Merit

Sunday, October 11th, 2015

(JNi.media) American psychiatrist, author and television personality Keith Ablow, who is also a contributor on psychiatry for Fox News Channel, has weighed in on the Ben Carson controversy regarding the hypothetical question of whether or not Jews would have fared better had they owned guns during the Holocaust.

In his new book “A Perfect Union,” Carson wrote that “through a combination of removing guns and disseminating propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance.”

What Carson’s comment revealed was not so much his knowledge of the Nazi state’s effort to dehumanize, disenfranchise, relocate and execute millions of Jews, through a policy of terror, starvation and brutality, but perhaps the fact that he did not know enough not to step on the third rail of American national politics — Jewish sensibilities about the Holocaust. His comment about “little resistance” sounded too close to the notion of “sheep to slaughter” Jews have tired of hearing.

ADL National Director Jonathan Greenblatt tried to put it charitably when he noted: “Ben Carson has a right to his views on gun control, but the notion that Hitler’s gun-control policy contributed to the Holocaust is historically inaccurate. The small number of personal firearms available to Germany’s Jews in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state.”

But Keith Ablow stood up for Carson, stating simply: “Ben Carson is right, and Jonathan Greenblatt is wrong.” And he explained: “What Greenblatt fails to account for is that the surrendering of firearms by Jews when required to by Nazi authorities was not merely the surrender of guns and ammunition. Those material items would not have been sufficient to defend against the Third Reich’s military.”

As is often the case, context is crucial in understanding these seemingly conflicting views. According to Stephen P. Halbrook, author of “Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and ‘Enemies of the State,’” There were an estimated 20,000 German Jews who owned guns, either for hunting, or souvenirs taken home after their service in WW1. As soon as Adolf Hitler became Germany’s Chancellor, in 1933, the Nazi government used official records to disarm potential opponents—communists, socialists and Jews. They conducted mass searches and seizures of guns, and Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

In 1938, Halbrook reports, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act, prohibiting Jews from working in the firearms industry, and also banning .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition. Then, following the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew, the Nazis engaged in Kristallnacht, the Night of the Broken Glass, which was, in fact, presented as a massive operation in search of Jewish owned weapons. The Nazis also ransacked Jewish homes and businesses and set fire to synagogues, but the excuse for all of the above was the notion that the dangerous Jews were harboring illegal weapons.

It is always a tricky business to judge the behavior of people in the past using the mindset of the present. But while Ben Carson misunderstand the sense of helplessness German and later Polish Jews felt, deserted as they were by practically the entire gentile world in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the point he makes is still valid. Gun ownership is an effective bulwark against a tyrannical regime, and the proof is that the first thing such a regime would go after are individually owned guns.

And, possibly, to take Carson’s notion another step, even in the most decrepit conditions, in a starved and diseased Warsaw Ghetto, a small band of Jews, scantily armed, managed to hold the Nazi army at bay for nearly a month, from April 19 to May 16, 1943. So Jews have shown that finally possessing guns made a big difference, contributing to the most heroic chapter in our own history.

JNi.Media

How I Would Change Israel’s Gun Control Laws

Sunday, July 19th, 2015

While it appears that Israel is a country inundated with guns, private ownership is actually quite low. As Israel doesn’t have the rather idiotic “concealed carry” law, and combat soldiers take their guns home with them, it appears that Israelis are far more armed than they really are.

As I’ve written in the past, Israel’s gun law are far too restrictive and regulated when it comes to who is eligible to get a gun license and own a personal weapon, yet far too nonchalant in terms of what steps are mandatory in the process of getting your gun license, once you meet that initial eligibility criteria.

The short version is that eligibility is based on what the government has defined as your critical need for a license (i.e. where you live, where you work or volunteer), alongside additional restrictions (i.e. age and type of army service). This prevents most Israelis from being eligible for a gun license.

It’s so restrictive that 40% of gun applicants are rejected, and under 200,000 citizens have private gun licenses. There are around 400,000 licensed firearms in Israel (not including army issued weapons).

Since I know someone is going to mention it in the comments, I’ll say it here first. Yes, Arab citizens can and do get gun licenses in Israel.

Once you have a gun license, you’re then restricted in how many guns you can own (only one), and how many bullets you may possess (only 50).

Surprisingly, for a country that requires 40 hours of driving lessons with a licensed instructor before getting a driver’s license, there’s almost no pre-license training required for getting a gun, other than one short class and then shooting 50 bullets. There’s also a background check, and getting a stamp from a doctor.

It appears the underlying philosophy is restrict access, restrict usage, restrict guns – and the thinking stopped right there.

Israel’s gun control laws are too restrictive in where they should be more liberal, and too negligent, where they should be more restrictive.

This is how I would change Israel’s gun law:

Eligibility The most obvious point, is that any Israeli civilian should be able to get a license, regardless of where they live or work. This doesn’t need an explanation. Gun ownership is a right.

Obviously, the applicants should not have a violent criminal or drug records and no major psychological problems.

Of course, just because everyone should be able to get a gun, it doesn’t mean they should be able to pick one up from a vending machine.

Training Like a car, I would require anyone who wants a gun license to go through training. If you need 40 hours of lessons to get a driver’s license, a few good hours of gun training is not too much to ask for.

For someone with a military background in a combat unit (or police, security, etc.), 10 hours of training, spread out over at least 2 days, with a mix of practical and applied training is sufficient.

Civilians without any security/combat backgrounds would require 40 hours of training.

Let’s get real, we’ve all seen too many people with licensed weapons, who simply don’t know how to handle or use them. That’s ridiculous — and dangerous.

Testing Once the training is complete, a standardized test should be given. The testing would include accuracy in shooting, taking care of the weapon, handling the weapon, etc.

The test would be given by a licensed tester who is not the instructor who taught you.

The bottom line is, I want to know that the person next to me on the street with a gun is actually minimally qualified to use it.

Shalom Bear

Peace Process? Obama Says US Gun Violence 33 Times Worse than in Israel

Sunday, June 21st, 2015

President Barack Obama told the American people that last week’s murder of nine blacks in a Charleston, S.C. church should wake up Americans “to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.”

He tweeted:

Here are the stats: Per population, we kill each other with guns at a rate 297x more than Japan, 49x more than France, 33x more than Israel.

The comparisons are a bit ridiculous and miss the point completely.

In Japan, the law states, “No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords.” Exceptions are few and far between, and licenses for hunting and sports are allowed only after a lengthy procedure.

In Israel, tens of thousands of people walk around with guns, most of them soldiers, licensed guards or members of first response teams, with virtually no incidents except when shooting at terrorists.

Two notable exceptions, often used by anti-Semites to try to describe Israelis as violent, were the murders of Arabs by Baruch Goldstein and Eden Natan-Zada.

They were exceptions and not examples. Gun violence in Israel historically is related to defend the country against terrorists.

President Obama wants to solve the problem of gun violence in the United States, but he put the emphasis on the word “gun” and not “violence, which is deeply rooted in American society from the days of the Wild West.

Obama said after the murders in Charleston:

It is within our power to do something about it. I say this recognizing that the politics of this town foreclose a lot of those avenues. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it.

Gun control is the obvious first way to find and quick and easy fix to American gun violence. The gun lobby has successful limited gun control laws, but the Charleston massacre may break the lobby’s back.

The more that guns are easily available, it is a reasonable conclusion that more shootings are likely to result.

The issue of gun control is so highly charged in the United States, under the guide of “freedom,” that it will be difficult to legislate and enforce stricter controls.

If legislation is enacted, it remains to be seen if those who should have guns will be denied them while those who should not have them will get guns anyway.

It is easier to legislate gun control than it is to legislate violence.

It is even easier for President Obama to decide what is best for Israel.

Here is Obama’s tweet:
obamatweet

Below is Obama’s speech on Thursday after the murders in Charleston.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/peace-process-obama-says-us-gun-violence-33-times-worse-than-in-israel/2015/06/21/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: