I’m going to double down on what Miguel said yesterday.

This is why I am such a believer in gun rights and personal gun ownership.

In Israel, only active duty military have guns.  Reservists and civilians generally do not.  To obtain a gun permit as a civilian, you had to serve and reach, at a minimum, the rank of sergeant, which means you were career military.  Simply doing the minimum requirement of two years isn’t enough to qualify.

As Hamas penetrated the border wall and started going door to door to murder and kidnap Jews, these people had no defense.

They relied too heavily on the border way and the military to protect them.

You are your last line of defense.

When every other system of security fails, you are in your own.

Yesterday proved that even the best systems of security will fail.

You need to be prepared for when that happens.

Not if, when.

My hope is that after this is over, Israel learns that and changes its gun laws.

I hope no Israeli civilian is ever unarmed again.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

14 thoughts on “A literal Red Dawn moment”
  1. It is “funny” that people think that Israel is awash in private guns.

    Other than people in uniform (including security guards) and the post-service “kids” guarding student outings, between both trip I only saw 2 citizens carrying handguns.

    Obviously, I couldn’t bring my own. 😞

    1. From the article

      “There is an irony to Huckabee’s confusion: The situation in Israel may be closer to the original intent of the authors of America’s Second Amendment than the situation in the US.

      That amendment, adopted in 1791, reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      It was incorporated into the Constitution of the nascent United States at a time when the Spanish controlled Florida and French and British forces threatened in the north and west. An armed society was a vital bulwark against external threats.

      Over time, with the decline of such threats as America pushed westward, and with advances in military technologies that rendered personal firearms all but useless against professional armies, US domestic fractures replaced those external threats as the organizing rationale for the Second Amendment.””

      Bullshit. Jefferson himself stated why the 2d exists, and it ain’t for external defense. They had just gotten done with an internal conflict after all….

      1. And to bastardize Churchill, when it comes to the American Revolution, never have so many owed so much to the few.

        If Hamas makes another move I think it will be a tell as to whether or not they have access to at least a tactical nuclear weapon or a small dirty bomb. Their infiltration and element of surprise (Israeli intel asleep at the wheel?) made such unnecessary, but if they try a major attack again, …

        1. Wonder who thought it was a good idea to schedule a massive outdoor event full of unarmed victims that close to a location KNOWN to be full of sworn killers seeking to murder unarmed victims. As long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist Israel must expect and plan for terrorism at any and all events of any kind. The became complacent…and are paying the price. Humans become complacent too easily.

      2. Birdog357, yes, many of the authors points are way off, but I was pointing attention to the comparison of the US with Israel regarding gun culture, law and policies. Which the author did get accurate. Yes, that one section you highlighted is some real bullshit, appreciated you pointing that out for anyone else who might have read the entire piece. Thanks.

      3. Wow, the confusion (or dishonesty) of that article is astounding. Israel closer to the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment? Absurd. Never mind the fact that the prefatory words of the 2nd Amendment are a reason (not THE reason) for the protection it expresses — there is also the well known fact that “militia” at that time was a synonym for “every able bodied adult male”. Not to mention the fact that the 2nd Amendment is redundant (and, at the time, at least one state ratifying body said so, that of MA) — it merely emphasizes what’s true without it, that the Federal government was granted no powers to disarm the people.

  2. Israel will never have a widespread gun culture like the US. It is a multi Ethnic, multi Religious nation, majority Jewish, but with a substantial Arab Israeli Citizen minority. Israeli Arabs in the Knesset are a significant minority bloc.

    How could/would they freely arm only their Jewish citizens and not the Arabs, Christians, Druze, and even their own Militant Jewish fanatics? They cannot unless they wish to be called Apartheid racists and worse by the “civilized” eanti-semites in Europe and the rest of the world.

    It would be like the US celebrating our gun culture while disarming our own Black minority population, like we shamefully used to with our Jim Crow laws.

    1. Obviously US gun culture generally celebrates armed citizens of any color, race, or creed, in spite of the projections by victim disarmers. With that in mind, why would the equivalent culture in Israel not be feasible? I don’t get it.

      1. The one distinction that comes to mind is that the US multicultural society is not nearly as volatile as it is in Israel. Yes, we have Islamists here but nowhere near the percentage that Israel has. Not sure what percentage if Israeli citizens are Islamists but whatever it is, it’s far larger than any area of the US, — for instance even Dearborn doesn’t have the percentage of Islamists that Israel has. And Islamists in Israel are far more able and free to take the political position of ‘killers of Jews’ than they would be able to achieve in the US. And Israel is equal in size to NJ, thus the extreme volatility level in such a small area requires far more control over firearms. It’s a Powder Keg.

        1. Could be. But just as in Chicago, disarming honest people isn’t a good solution. I wonder how many people in Israel have sufficiently bought into terrorism that they want to act on that notion, as opposed to just waving banners and shouting offensive slogans. That fraction is, by definition, criminals, and therefore are likely to obtain illegal weapons to do their evil — just as criminals here do. I would argue the number of honest people is far greater, and even 10% of that number carrying would quickly weed out most of the terrorists.

          1. All good points gpkoning, but the layered and aggressive authoritative hold on weapons and ammo is so tight that a well-financed Islamic terrorist nation which has tried just about every tactic, had to resort to powerful outside assistance, use recreational sport flying craft and 5000 missiles, in strategic sequences and methods to bypass one of the most sophisticated defense systems in the world. I just don’t see a comparison in the USA. If weapons had been allowed over the years in Israel, (something similar to even MA state’s gun laws), the level of extreme violence would have been through the proverbial roof long ago.
            I believe the underlying problem here is that both sides see themselves as children of Abraham, and both sides believe they are the recipients of the promises meant only for the true utopian nation of God’s People.
            To understand this extreme mindset, try attempting to walk into the Islamic part of Dearborn MI, with a bible in your hand and a wonderful smile on your face, you’ll quickly come to understand the error of your ways. Peace only comes through WAR, where only the People of God stand in the end. One side says they are the Religion of Peace (which means peace after war that decimates the world) and the other side says they are’ God’s People, God’s Nation and God is their Peace, which translated means God will fight for Israel.
            There won’t be any solving of this conflict until the Creator Himself physically descends onto the Mount in Jeru Salem. Islamists and Jews will bet their very lives they are the only ones on God’s Side. And in the USA, there is no equivalent mindset.

  3. The essayist, stating that , iirc, a militia armed with personal arms can not prevail against a modem professional military, perhaps should consult with the Taliban, the Viet Cong, and likely others. Might elicit a change in opinion.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.