Jews, Guns And The 2nd Amendment


The Oakland Raiderettes

American Jews have long been staunch supporters of the authoritarian policies of the American Left, none more so than gun control. The peculiar reading of the 2nd Amendment that informs them is easily refuted by the most cursory examination of the political writings of the founders, basic understanding of the vocabulary of the day, and high school grammar. But even the lonely outpost of (relatively) conservative Jewish thought, The American Jewish Committee (the publishers of Commentary Magazine) fall into the lazy patterns of reflexive dislike and mistrust of guns.

These are the people who think nothing of the phrase, “and then the gun went off.” Anyone with any experience with firearms bristles at that construction,” knowing it to be both profoundly ignorant of how they work and cravenly manipulative. But they do not have that experience, and that is no surprise. Gun ownership in the areas in which American Jews live is the lowest in the country. It is understandable that they have no experience, but it is unforgivable that they do not see their ignorance as anything other than evidence of moral superiority.

In an otherwise reasonable article suggesting that the rhetoric of the Left is neither rational nor productive, they explicitly accept that very rhetoric. The text of the 2nd Amendment is plain, yet, in Liberals Need to Be Honest About the Second Amendment, Jonathan Tobin seems content with “common sense” restrictions on the God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Advocates for more regulations, whether background checks for gun sales or more rigorous registration procedures tend to preface their arguments by claims that they don’t wish to take away guns from owners who possess them legally. But this is pure baloney. If the National Rifle Association — the object of most of the attacks of gun control advocates — opposes even regulations that are truly a matter of common sense, it is because the group and its members don’t believe those protestations and they’re right about that.

And this from a writer who claims that he is a firm believer that “the right to bear arms is part of our heritage as a free people.”

The limitations on the 2nd Amendment that are a matter of common sense are obvious. Clearly, those adjudicated as being mentally unstable, whether as threats to themselves or threats to others, should be prevented from possessing firearms. Felons have paid their debts to society, so I am less comfortable with denying them their basic human, natural and God-given rights to self defense. After all, felons get mugged and their houses invaded too. Those found to be involved in terrorism (read: Islamic fundamentalism) shouldn’t be in the country in the first place, so discussing how the 2nd Amendment should apply to them is pointless.

But that is pretty much it. The current hodgepodge of regulations are designed to do nothing other than prevent the law-abiding from exercising their rights, with the end game being the obvious…total confiscation. The data are overwhelming that more guns does not mean more crime….it is quite the contrary. But even accepting the middle ground that gun ownership does not affect crime rate (I don’t), the 2nd Amendment is about more than self defense. We, the militia, are the country’s last defense against despotism, and that is more important than crime.

11 comments to “Jews, Guns And The 2nd Amendment”
  1. “Clearly, those adjudicated as being mentally unstable, whether as threats to themselves or threats to others, should be prevented from possessing firearms.”

    Note: considering who controls the judiciary and the Federal bureaucracy, the definitions of mentally unstable and threats to themselves or others are VERY fungible.

    Anthony Kennedy has already changed the legal, if not real world and historic, definition of marriage in order to destroy the 1st Amendment. I put nothing past these people.

    This in no way means I think we should prevent genuine mentally disturbed people or felons from obtaining firearms. Merely making a salient point that he who controls the language, be it in the culture wars or in the courts, has the upper hand.

  2. The way to keep the mentally ill from getting weapons is by involuntarily committing them. If the VA shooter had been committed for observation, when the cops had to escort him out of the television stations, he wouldn’t have been able to legally buy a gun. The Left hates the idea and I realize that it has been abused at times, but there is a legitimate need at times to commit someone and evaluate if they pose a danger to society or not.

  3. We had a nut try to shoot up (and blow up, with a propane cylinder) a nearby elementary school, only to be stopped by a couple of gardeners. It turns out the nut was a frequent flier with the local cops, having been reported a dozen times or more for bizarre behavior, but the cops could do nothing because of the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Connor v. Donaldson that made involuntary institutionalization most difficult.

    Apparently until a nut shoots up the Supreme Court we’re going to have lunatics inflicted on us by our betters in black muu-muus.

  4. And as for gun control, start in the ghettos. That’s where the problem is at its most fulminant.

    What’s that you say? It’s too dangerous? It’s racist? That’s where gun-related homicides occur each and every day.

  5. I started shooting when I was about seven, so I didn’t know that Jews weren’t supposed to like guns until it was too late!

  6. But they have! Almost every big city in America has more restrictive gun laws than the suburbs that abut them. And it hasn’t worked.

    Clearly we need newer, stronger, better gun control laws. That should fix it!

  7. Anytime I hear or read the words “Common Sense” and “gun Control” being used together it makes my skin crawl.

  8. Not sure if anybody will read this, given the passage of time, but it needs to be said –

    Involuntary commitment for observation WILL NOT cause one to become prohibited from keeping and/or bearing arms. It’s involuntary commitment for treatment that brings about the loss of 2A right.

    And while we are on the subject – why had nobody sought to have the Va shooter – or any of several other recent shooters – evaluated? The Sandy Hook shooter’s mom tried but was turned down by the system but hardly anybody remembers that.

    stay safe

Comments are closed.